Maybe for development, but certainly not for production. All my jaw dropping increases in execution speed *were* comparing no debugging to summary debugging. I think I'd cry if I tried to view a tree output for a Mach-II app. ;-)
This is all coming up because our server admins had no idea about this so I am having to give them a crash course and explain why I'm asking for this on the production boxes. Sean, any chance MM can make a more definitive statement about this for server admins to understand the issue? Thanks, Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean A Corfield > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] CFCs and Debugging > > > On Mar 1, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Brian Kotek wrote: > > This is CORRECT by the way! It really is "report execution times" > > that kills the execution time! Thanks David. > > If you choose summary rather than tree, you can still get reasonable > performance *and* execution times. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > Got Mach II? -- http://www.mach-ii.com/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
