On Apr 30, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy Grundman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm working on trying to improve the performance of Catalyst's
body parsing.
We're currently using the all-Perl HTTP::Body, and it actually
beats
APR::Request for urlencoded data. The regexes are pretty
simple, so this
isn't too surprising.
I just ran a few microbenchmarks comparing apreq's urldecoding
parser to
HTTP::Body, and apreq came out about 10x faster. How are you getting
your results?
The test script is I used is here (requires svn trunk):
http://people.apache.org/~joes/testing_apreq2_vs_http_body.pl
when I run it with an arg of 10000, here's what it produced:
Benchmark: timing 10000 iterations of apreq_args, apreq_body,
http_body...
apreq_args: 2 wallclock secs ( 1.89 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.89 CPU) @
5291.01/s (n=10000)
apreq_body: 4 wallclock secs ( 3.81 usr + 0.00 sys = 3.81 CPU) @
2624.67/s (n=10000)
http_body: 70 wallclock secs (69.84 usr + 0.00 sys = 69.84 CPU) @
143.18/s (n=10000)
I'm guessing you benchmarked by throwing lots of requests at a
webserver, in which case you probably hit a bottleneck somewhere
unrelated to the actual parsing.
Thanks Joe, I was using a simple benchmark script but may have been
using the wrong apreq method or something. I'll give your script a try.
-Andy
