I've turned PRETTY on and one thing I have noticed is that it increases my compile times by about 20%-25% - from 430 seconds to ~ 570, which sucks. But I guess 7 minutes to 9 isn't that bad - once I passed the 5 minute mark I leaned to go surf the web while I wait .. :-/
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> wrote: > So wait, even with Firebug disabled in FF2 you saw a 10% hit? > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM, John Gunther <johncurtisgunt...@yahoo.com > > wrote: > >> >> A while back I was doing some performance tests and my recollection >> was, for that application, in FF2, it was something like 10% slower in >> PRETTY. This was with GWT 1.4. Not a lot, but just enough that I >> decided not to performance test in PRETTY. >> >> (The big performance impact in FF2 is if Firebug is completely >> disabled or not. Firebug must be completely disabled (via Tools/ >> Addons) with a FF restart to get the real numbers (plus just about >> everything looks like it has a memory leak with Firebug on)) >> >> John >> >> On Apr 19, 10:20 am, Dobes Vandermeer <dob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Okay, that's helpful. >> > Maybe it's worth slowing down the downloads for a while to get some >> better >> > insight into some of the errors customers are getting, since it'll allow >> me >> > to read the stack traces Firefox includes in the exceptions. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > I just listened to the talk - didn't hear him say anything regarding >> > > performance of long name vs short names. >> > >> > > The execution difference for smaller names shouldn't exist for the new >> > > generation of browsers using JIT for javascript (i.e. FF3.5, Safair 4, >> > > Chrome). >> > >> > > Even with older browsers, I don't see it being super significant - >> > > 1-2% at most if it's even measurable. The execution of the javascript >> > > code by the interpreter should far outweigh the cost of tokenizing the >> > > input even if you have a 100 character name. The cost of doing a 100 >> > > byte memcpy should be insignificant compared to all the other stuff >> > > the interpreter must do. However, I could be wrong - I haven't tested >> > > this in any way, so hard numbers from real-world examples would >> > > probably be best. >> > >> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Arthur Kalmenson >> > > <arthur.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > I don't know the exact numbers. But if I remember correctly, during >> > > > Bruce's presentation, "Faster-than-Possible Code: Deferred Binding >> > > > with GWT" ( >> > >http://sites.google.com/site/io/faster-than-possible-code-deferred-bi. >> .. >> > > ) >> > > > at Google I/O 2008, he mentioned something about smaller function >> and >> > > > variable names executing faster then longer names. >> > >> > > > Also, as Vitali said, you're code is going to be rather bloated. We >> > > > were accidentally running one of our apps in PRETTY and found the >> > > > before compression size was 3 MB and after compression was 400kb. >> When >> > > > we changed to OBF, the before compression size was 500kb and >> > > > compressed was somewhere around 120kb. >> > >> > > > What's the reason that you want to run it as PRETTY? If you want to >> > > > make the functions callable from regular JS, you should take a look >> at >> > > > Ray Cromwell's excellent GWT Exporter project: >> > > >http://code.google.com/p/gwt-exporter/ >> > >> > > > -- >> > > > Arthur Kalmenson >> > >> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > >> I believe that it should be the same performance in terms of >> > > >> execution. You're download times will probably suffer - I wouldn't >> be >> > > >> surprised if the code bloats by 2-3x if not more. >> > >> > > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Dobes <dob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >>> I'm considering deploying a version in PRETTY mode since it may >> solve >> > > >>> a Safari 4 issue I'm having and it would also allow me to >> interpret >> > > >>> the stack traces produced by Firefox a lot better. >> > >> > > >>> However, I'm wondering what experiences people have had with the >> > > >>> performance of PRETTY more - how is it? >> > >> > > >>> Thanks in advance, >> > > >>> Dobes >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Dobes Vandermeer >> > Director, Habitsoft Inc. >> > dob...@habitsoft.com >> > 778-891-2922 >> >> > > > > -- Dobes Vandermeer Director, Habitsoft Inc. dob...@habitsoft.com 778-891-2922 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
