Sounds like a sound theory. Matt u around? Wondering what he has to think...I've got a decompiler here but am I breaking any "laws" by decompiling a cfm template and posting it? :-)
Stace -----Original Message----- From: Gaulin, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:16 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code It seems to me that a code written in JSP or java has the benefit of being strongly typed... that "long loops" definition in the JSP code is very significant to a compiler. Try running that loop again using "new Integer" in each iteration and see what you get. CF-translated code may be compiled into bytecode, but unless it is doing some serious optimization it cannot infer that the looping variable is really an int, and that implies that it must be treating it like an object. Anybody try decompiling mx generated class files (assuming they exist)? That will tell you a big part of the story. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:08 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code Dick, CFMX Enterprise was showing the below results for me Jsp=20ms Cfm=3064ms consistently. Increasing the loops *Jsp* seemed to perform well.. Cfm started to die off. I happen to notice one abnormal behaviour as well for *.cfm loops=1000000 for(x=1;x lte loops;x=x+1) If you reference the variable like "x lte loops" ,CFMX takes a hefty 8903ms to run the code. I have no idea.. why this is happening. Anyways.. i think it comes down to the fact that the CFMX compiler needs to produce more optimized Serlvet/bytecode. I wonder how the CFMX compiler transforms *.cfm into servlet code? Does CFMX actually change CFM Code to *Strong type*(int, String, double etc)? if this is the case...we shouldnt see the huge performance difference. Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:27 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > > Joe > > I didn't try the code, at first, because I can't run jsp under CFMX on > the Mac. > > After your email I tried the comparison using jsp under Tomcat > jwsdp-1_0-ea2. > > The results I got are significant. > > The cfm program consistently takes more than 40-80 times longer to run > than the jsp program (under Tomcat), for example: > > cfm: 4110 ms > jsp: 50 ms > > I fiddled with the program to make sure the actual loop was as similar > as possible and that nothing but the loop was within the timing -- no > significant affect. > > I tried longer loops with similar results. > > I changed the test to lt (<) instead of lte (<=), similar results. > > I changed the jsp increment x++ to match cfm's x=x+1 -- similar results. > > On Mac OS X both Tomcat and CFMX/JRun use the same underlying (Mac OS > X) JVM (not the one installed with CFMX). > > The problem appears to be whatever CFMX uses to generate a Java > program, is doing it (at least this loop) very inefficiently. > > Anyone else have any ideas? > > Dick > > > > > In reply to my Original Post for anybody interested in the Test code > > Jsp code implemented in a Java class compiled with J2SE(JDK 1.4.1 RC) > > produced the > > same results as CFMX Jsp code. > > > > <!--- Jsp Code, cut and paste in a *.jsp file. This is for CFMX > > Enterprise ---> > > <% > > long loops=1000000,sTime=0,eTime=0,r=0; > > double i=0; > > out.println(loops +" Loops<br>"); > > sTime=System.currentTimeMillis(); > > out.println(+sTime+"ms Start Time<br>"); > > for(long x=1;x<=loops;x++){ > > r=r+x; > > } > > eTime=System.currentTimeMillis(); > > out.println(r+" Result<br>"); > > out.println(eTime+"ms End Time<br>"); > > out.println((eTime-sTime)+"ms Execution Time<br>"); > > i=(eTime-sTime)/1000; > > out.println(i+"seconds"); > > %> > > > > <!-- Cfm Code, "loops" var in the for statement took more than double > > the > > time to run, i am not sure why? --> > > <cfscript> > > loops=1000000;z=0; > > writeOutput(loops & " Loops<br>"); > > sTime=GetTickCount(); > > writeOutput(sTime & "ms Start Time<br>"); > > for(x=1;x lte 1000000;x=x+1)/*<=loops takes more than double the time*/ > > {z=z+x;} > > eTime=GetTickCount(); > > writeOutput(z & " Result<br>"); > > writeOutput(eTime & "ms End Time<br>"); > > writeOutput(eTime-sTime&"ms Execution Time<br>"); > > writeOutput((eTime-sTime)/1000&"seconds"); > > </cfscript> > > > > > > Joe Eugene > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.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
