[cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
Ricardo SIGNES wrote: Did anyone (Mark?) look at the performance hit that Class::MOP will cause? I've only taken a quick look, but it looks like the total user time to run test suite goes up nearly 50% with this patch. I hadn't done that, but it's certainly worth doing. I did just a few tests now, and found something on the order of a 10 to 25% increase. I'm assuming that a more hook-laden class will suffer even more. Benchmarks? Not necessarily. It depends on whether the time is mostly in the module-load time, or the method call time. Looking at the code, I see some caching in the actual method call, so I suspect the module load time. Still, the performance hit is enough for me to want to revert the patch. It was interesting to learn about how this will work in Perl6, but considering this drawback, I can wait for the Perl6 port to actually apply the knowledge! Thanks for your attentive to this. I'll report our results back to the Class::MOP author. Mark - Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
There are ways to improve the caching used in Class::MOP - I can see if $work will allow Stevan (author of Class::MOP and Moose) and I to work on some details. One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is the ability to declare a class "closed" which will allow for Moose to cache all the lookups at compiletime. I'm pretty sure there isn't something similar for Class::MOP right now, but there may be able to be something added that will allow that. Of course, this is a major hit for compiletime which affects the testsuite's running time quite dramatically. It will also be a pretty big runtime hit for pure CGI scripts using CGI::Application. Using this under some persistent environment (modperl or FCGI) will obviously negate that hit. Rob On 7/2/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > Did anyone (Mark?) look at the performance hit that Class::MOP will cause? > I've only taken a quick look, but it looks like the total user time to run test > suite goes up nearly 50% with this patch. I hadn't done that, but it's certainly worth doing. I did just a few tests now, and found something on the order of a 10 to 25% increase. > I'm assuming that a more hook-laden class will suffer even more. Benchmarks? Not necessarily. It depends on whether the time is mostly in the module-load time, or the method call time. Looking at the code, I see some caching in the actual method call, so I suspect the module load time. Still, the performance hit is enough for me to want to revert the patch. It was interesting to learn about how this will work in Perl6, but considering this drawback, I can wait for the Perl6 port to actually apply the knowledge! Thanks for your attentive to this. I'll report our results back to the Class::MOP author. There are ways to improve the caching used in Class::MOP - I can see if $work will allow Stevan (author of Class::MOP and Moose) and I to work on some details. One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is the ability to declare a class "closed" which will allow for Moose to cache all the lookups at compiletime. I'm pretty sure there isn't something similar for Class::MOP right now, but there may be able to be something added that will allow that. Of course, this is a major hit for compiletime which affects the testsuite's running time quite dramatically. It will also be a pretty big runtime hit for pure CGI scripts using CGI::Application. Using this under some persistent environment (modperl or FCGI) will obviously negate that hit. Rob
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
* Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-02T23:00:18] > One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is > the ability to declare a class "closed" which will allow for Moose to cache ...yeah, I was wondering if that closed-ness feature was a MOP-ism or a Moosism. > Of course, this is a major hit for compiletime which affects the testsuite's > running time quite dramatically. It will also be a pretty big runtime hit > for pure CGI scripts using CGI::Application. Using this under some > persistent environment (modperl or FCGI) will obviously negate that hit. This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use under mod_perl! -- rjbs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
BTW: Perl.com editor chromatic wrote up a review of Class::MOP for those who aren't familiar with that package like I was. http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/06/cpan_module_review_classmop.html - Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use > under mod_perl! Is there something difficult about using it under mod_perl? - Perrin - Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
On 7/5/06, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use > under mod_perl! Is there something difficult about using it under mod_perl? I think he is considering calling 'new' on a CGI::App object once, and then calling 'run' on it multiple times in a mod_perl environment. Currently that can lead to problems with leftover info in the object. However, the cost of creating a new CGI::App object is very minimal, so I don't think it is really a big problem at the moment. Cheers, Cees - Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP and performance
On 7/5/06, Cees Hek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/5/06, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > > This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use > > under mod_perl! > > Is there something difficult about using it under mod_perl? I think he is considering calling 'new' on a CGI::App object once, and then calling 'run' on it multiple times in a mod_perl environment. Currently that can lead to problems with leftover info in the object. However, the cost of creating a new CGI::App object is very minimal, so I don't think it is really a big problem at the moment. That's not the problem. The cost isn't in creating the object, it's in running setup() every time (which is what C::A::P::Apache ends up doing). Rob - Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
