Another note that I mentioned in the other thread: the Haml page used in the benchmarking script, while it has roughly the same output as the ERb page, has a rather large amount of dynamic content, even for Haml. This content pretty much can't be reproduced in ERb, which contributes negatively to Haml's overall performance.
- Nathan hampton c wrote: > Actually, I just wrote a note about this in the group. I'll quote it > again to make sure that the record is straight on this. > > "Pure haml is 2.7 times slower than pure erb. This is a fact. And this > isn't due to Haml being slow, just erb being REALLY fast. > > However, most of your time "rendering" in a Rails applications is > spent with your models/helpers/etc building them as the template is > processed. So, your total rendering time doesn't increase by 2.7, just > the pure-template part which is a trivial section in the first place. > I've found that total page-rendering time only slows by about 2-5% > when using Haml in a real Rails application. Haml is much faster than > all the things you are doing *in* your application." > > Yes. Haml is definitely being used in production. > http://www.projectbreakout.com > is a site we just recently launched that is pure-Haml. > > Here is a bit of the production.log I just saw on my tail -f. > > > Processing InfoController#promote (for 198.185.18.207 at 2007-03-22 > 10:16:37) [GET] > Session ID: 005ccc8de1243f1db8ac5ad038b04b3a > Parameters: {"action"=>"promote", "controller"=>"info"} > Rendering within layouts/application > Rendering info/promote > Completed in 0.01489 (67 reqs/sec) | Rendering: 0.01453 (97%) | DB: > 0.00000 (0%) | 200 OK [http://www.projectbreakout.com/info/promote] > > This page has a lot of Haml on it and loads very quickly. The main > page of the site takes a bit longer to load, but mostly due to all of > the things we are having to do in the template itself (building rows, > sorting, etc). > > A list of other production sites with Haml. > > http://www.mdialogue.com/ > http://www.pursudo.com/ > http://www.lookingrealgood.com/ > > I'm sure there are more, but these are the one's my company has > recently released. > > -hampton. > > On Mar 22, 9:03 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Ok, I ran them. Gotta say I'm a little disappointed to see that haml >> is 2x even approaching 3x as slow as erb when running large tests. >> >> Are people really using haml in a production environment and not >> noticing slowdowns?? >> >> On Mar 21, 5:00 pm, "Nex3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Yep, "rake benchmark". >>> >>> For future reference, rake has a handy -T flag that'll tell you all >>> the available targets in the current Rakefile. >>> >>> - Nathan >>> >>> On Mar 21, 11:14 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> how do I run the haml benchmark code that is in the plugin dir? is it >>>> a special rake task? >>>> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
