This may have been asked already, but any difference in the query time on CFMX?
At 01:27 AM 7/31/02 -0400, you wrote: >Jesse/Sean, > Below are the details of the code that is running slow on CFMX. > Scenario (Problems seen in pages where #NO 1,3,4 exists(CPU average >85-95% ). > > 1. Data/Content is saved in the database (SQL2k) as a WDDX > See wddxpacket below. Items in the packet are >-------------------------------------- >(ALTTAG,BODY,CONTENTITEMID,CONTENTTYPEID,DESCRIPTION,ERRORS, >FILES,KEYWORDS,NAVTEXT,PUBLISHDATE,PUBLISHDAY,PUBLISHMONTH, >PUBLISHYEAR,TITLE,UPLOADIMAGE,UPLOADPDF,USERNAME,VERSIONNUMBER,VERSIONSTATUS >ID >-------------------------------------- > 2. There is a backend server that creates and populates the > CONTENT for >wddxPacket.. > "We are NOT concerned with the backend". > > 3. Custom Tag used to get wddxPacket Data when passed the > ContentItemID > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > <cfsetting enablecfoutputonly="Yes"> > <!--- Initialize attributes ---> > <cfparam name="attributes.ContentItemID" default=""> > <cfparam name="attributes.returnStruct" default=""> > <!--- Get the content object from the database ---> > <cfquery name="qryData" datasource="#Request.DSN#" maxrows="1"> > SELECT WDDXPacket FROM ContentVersion > WHERE ContentItemID = #Attributes.ContentItemID# > AND VersionStatusID = 'PUB' > </cfquery> > <cfif qryData.recordcount> > <!--- Deserialize the WDDX Packet ---> > <cfwddx action="WDDX2CFML" input="#qryData.WDDXPacket#" > output="strTemp"> > <cfscript> > // Pass the structure back to the caller > x = Evaluate("caller.#Attributes.ReturnStruct# = strTemp"); > // Pass the successful boolean return code > caller.bolReturnCode = 1; > </cfscript> > <cfelse> > <cfset caller.bolReturnCode = 0> > </cfif> > <cfsetting enablecfoutputonly="No"> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > 4. Custom Tag Call in the dynamic page when passed >(?ContentItemID=1,..7...,20....) > ------------------------------------- > <CF_GetContentItem > ContentItemID="#url.ContentItemID#" > ReturnStruct="strProduct"> > ------------------------------------- > > 5.Output Content > ------------------------------------- > #strProduct.Title#,#strProduct.BODY# .... > ------------------------------------- > 6.When we ran other sections of the application WITHOUT any WDDX.. > All of them ran ok and scaled quite well. > > 7. Load Test Results for CF5.0 and CFMX for ABOVE section of code > gave the below results. > CF5.0 CFMX > Win2k Win2k > 600 Mhx P3 2(Dual) 750Mhx P3 (NOTE.. Bigger box) > Avg 12% CPU Avg 85%-95% CPU > > Any ideas why we are seeing CPU usage shoot up in CFMX? >Joe > >****wddxPacket is stored in SQL2K as ntext(16) TYPE and can get upto 2-4 >pages long.**** >****WDDX in SQL2k saved in one FIELD(WDDXPacket) of the Table >(ContentVersion)******* ><wddxPacket version='1.0'><header></header><data><struct><var >name='ALTTAG'><string>MS Commercial</string></var><var >name='BODY'><string><P>All MS&reg; models are made in the USA to >the highest quality standards.</P><char code='0A'/><P>The >MS&reg; Series grew out of our decades of experience with >Highline<SUP>TM</SUP>, Trimline, and units combined with the >time-proven technologies of The Asian&reg; series. All MS&reg; >models are made in the USA to the highest quality standards. </P><char >code='0A'/><H2>Key Distinguishing Feature</H2><char >code='0A'/><P>North America</P><char code='0A'/><TABLE >cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><char >code='0A'/><TBODY><char code='0A'/><TR><char code='0A'/><TD >class=headerWhite bgColor=#ff6633>Related Links and >Brochures:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><char >code='0A'/><P><A target=_new >href="http://@url@/pdfs/P1903.pdf">The MS Series - Commercial >(PDF)</A></P></string></var><var >name='CONTENTITEMID'><string>11</string></var><var >name='CONTENTTYPEID'><string>PMP</string></var><var >name='DESCRIPTION'><string>MS Commercial have mechanical non-computing >specifically designed for industrial, and fleet >applications.</string></var><var name='ERRORS'><string></string></var><var >name='FILES'><string>com.jpg,P103.pdf</string></var><var >name='KEYWORDS'><string>, industrial, fleet, north >america</string></var><var >name='NAVTEXT'><string>MS-Commercial</string></var><var >name='PUBLISHDATE'><dateTime>2002-3-7T0:0:0-5:0</dateTime></var><var >name='PUBLISHDAY'><string>07</string></var><var >name='PUBLISHMONTH'><string>3</string></var><var >name='PUBLISHYEAR'><string>2002</string></var><var name='TITLE'><string>The >MS Series - Commercial</string></var><var >name='UPLOADIMAGE'><string>2A2.8_MS_com.jpg</string></var><var >name='UPLOADPDF'><string>P1903.pdf</string></var><var >name='USERNAME'><string>abc></var><var >name='VERSIONNUMBER'><number>42</number></var><var >name='VERSIONSTATUSID'><string>PUB</string></var></struct></data></wddxPacke >t> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:17 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > >Joe- > > I'll weigh in here and try to make it simple: > >Q: What is different in WDDX? > >A: Everything. Every slice, splice and piece of code. Completely and totally >different. > > What is changed in the syntax? Not much. > > >The question everyone wants to know is: What code are you running that you >are saying is slower than CF5? > >Much like the current thread on the loading of the text file: What is the >template you are running that is going slow? > >Engineering/Development here in-house cannot fix a bug we cannot define, or >identify. > >Saying "WDDX is slow" does nothing. Saying "WDDX translation given X and Y >data is slow vs CF5" helps us more. > >This way, a bug can be entered, escalated and a patch can be generated. > >Jesse Noller >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Macromedia Server Development >Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:08 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > OK, that sounds like good progress so maybe we'll all stop ragging on > > you > > > :) > > You havent given out any peformance tests.. other than MM Perf brief > > I am NOT sure...you guys have any performance test for the details we > > are talking about here...What can you expect from developers..? > > > > > Well, it's apples and oranges... in CF5, WDDX2CFML was written in C/C++ > > > and now it's completely rewritten in Java. It's just... different code. > > I' > > > m not on the product team so I don't have access to the source. > > > > Repeated... no spec details given. This news was public.. in NEO/Beta > > releases. > > What would be good information is some like... (eg IIF scales differently > > in > > CFMX Vs CF5.0) > > > > SO the question is : Are there any changes/updates made to > > WDDX...in CFMX Vs CF5.0 (regardless of JAVA/C++ engine.. unicode)? > > that can possibly make it run slower (like the COM issue) yet > > Unknown(TESTING). > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:17 PM > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 08:54 , Joe Eugene wrote: > > > > I havent come to a final test result.. but i think we are > > > > narrowing > > > > it > > > > down to the Complex Object(WDDX) returned from the data store > > > > that gets parsed out WDDX2CFML.. > > > > > > OK, that sounds like good progress so maybe we'll all stop ragging on > > you > > > :) > > > > > > > Custom Tags are probably running ok/fast.. probably its the > > WDDX > > > > parsing..in CFMX that causes the CPU to run 80-90%... Atleast > > we > > > > are seeing a pattern here with tests. > > > > > > Hmm, interesting. That should be pretty easy to performance test. > > > > > > > Is it possible that you can find out.. > > > > How the Java Implementation of WDDX2CFML has changed in CFMX? > > > > > > Well, it's apples and oranges... in CF5, WDDX2CFML was written in C/C++ > > > and now it's completely rewritten in Java. It's just... different code. > > I' > > > m not on the product team so I don't have access to the source. > > > > > > > Any WDDX implementation changes(Not in docs) will be helpful. > > > > > > It's Unicode capable now - but that's just by virtue of it being > > > implemented in Java. As far as I know, there were no specific behavioral > > > changes (except what's in the release notes etc). > > > > > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > > > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > > > -- Margaret Atwood > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists