I ran a variant of John's code using the rand function for the string length
and got fairly similar results as before.
>It may well depend on the size and number of the strings, since the
>main inefficiencies can be piling up of immutable strings and
>subsequent GC. And like they say, there's "l
It may well depend on the size and number of the strings, since the
main inefficiencies can be piling up of immutable strings and
subsequent GC. And like they say, there's "lies, damn lies, and
statistics"...
d
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
>>Yes, cfsavecontent appears t
>Yes, cfsavecontent appears to use a java buffer internally, and runs
>just about as fast. Pick whichever method gives you code you like
>better with your content, its source, and your coding style.
>
>Dave
>
Its actually faster according to the tests I've seen. Both ArrayAppend and
cfsaveConten
) performance vs PHP (5)
It must do as it requires createObject(java) to be enabled and the java
class loader.
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: 07 November 2010 21:46
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: CF (8.0.0) performance vs PHP (5)
John,
Hey
It must do as it requires createObject(java) to be enabled and the java
class loader.
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: 07 November 2010 21:46
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: CF (8.0.0) performance vs PHP (5)
John,
Hey keep in mind that
e.com
www.necfug.com
-Original Message-
From: John M Bliss [mailto:bliss.j...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:41 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: CF (8.0.0) performance vs PHP (5)
> Moreover what was the code you used. Until we see it for all we know its a
very biased test tow
> Moreover what was the code you used. Until we see it for all we know its a
very biased test towards PHP, CF or HTML.
CF code I used was included in my post. HTML was rendered CF -> view source
-> save as HTML. I don't do PHP.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
> Unless
Unless you're testing this under a significant load, such as using jMeter etc.,
this test is essentially meaningless. Loops over thousands or simple page loads
do not mean anything. I'd look at a more real world test, make sure the HTML is
exactly the same, structure the code to be similar etc.
Yes, cfsavecontent appears to use a java buffer internally, and runs
just about as fast. Pick whichever method gives you code you like
better with your content, its source, and your coding style.
Dave
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
>>+1,000,000 for Jame's theory about stri
>+1,000,000 for Jame's theory about string concatenation. CF is very
>inefficient at this. Doesn't amtter much for small stuff and a few
>repeats, but for bulk, a Java buffer is the way to go.
>
>Dave
>
>
String concatenation is quite slow in CF. This blog did some fairly simple
tests and found
I think the cfexecute tag is definitely not the faster cf tag ever.
As an ex php programmer and a current ColdFusion programmer I do have to say
that there is usually a speed benefit to php over ColdFusion however, I do
have to say that I think the overall benefits to ColdFusion far outweigh the
Whatever Jochemyou get the pointa simple page load test with
some queries etc. has nothing to do with the threadit was a SPECIFIC
performance issue.
I bow down to your superior knowledge and use of semantics ;-)
Cheers
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 09:56 +0200, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> O
-
> From: "Wil Genovese"
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:06 AM
> To: "cf-talk"
> Subject: Re: CF (8.0.0) performance vs PHP (5)
>
>>
>> Again this means nothing. I've worked on very high load high performance
>> ColdFusion based web
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Bryan Stevenson wrote:
> Respectfully Ketanyour tests have nothing to do with the string
> concatenation performance issue that was the crux of this thread ;-)
I very much doubt the performance issue discussed here has anything to
do with string concatenation
--
From: "Wil Genovese"
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:06 AM
To: "cf-talk"
Subject: Re: CF (8.0.0) performance vs PHP (5)
>
> Again this means nothing. I've worked on very high load high performance
> ColdFusion based web applications that liter
Again this means nothing. I've worked on very high load high performance
ColdFusion based web applications that literally served up 2.5 to 3 million
user requests per day and each request took less than 350ms on average. It
comes down to performance tuning at all layers. The out-of-the-box in
For giggles, I just tried this on my box and got:
HTML 33 milliseconds (static DataTime stamp and no queries to DB)
CF 2910 milliseconds (cleared template cache and newly restarted CF
service)
CF 707 milliseconds (after above run)
And here's the code I tested. NOTE: only needed t
Respectfully Ketanyour tests have nothing to do with the string
concatenation performance issue that was the crux of this thread ;-)
Cheers
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:29 -0400, Ketan Jetty wrote:
> This can lead to lots of controvertial posts. I did some performance testing
> long back betwe
Although I tend to agree with you Will, as a 12 year vet developing CF and
for the past 3 years mixing in some PHP, PHP is just simply faster on an
average setup every day need basis. I still use CF, and love it, but it's
not as fast as PHP.
Regards,
David McGraw
Oyova Software, LLC
http://www.o
This means nothing to me without proper test procedures and full disclosure of
the source code and test data for each test and the hardware specifications
that were used along with databases and network specs. There's a large number
of variables involved and I can attest to the fact that getti
This can lead to lots of controvertial posts. I did some performance testing
long back between HTML, CF, PHP, ASP.NET and Java. The benchmark was a static
HTML page and everything was measured against the performance of HTML. Criteria
used in the benchmarking was to generate a datetime stamp, r
FWIW, you'll probably find a speed improvement if you have
output="false" on cfcomponent and cffunction...
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Bryn Parrott
wrote:
>
> For those to whom it might be useful, here is the wrapper cfc I used for
> java.io.FileWriter which, in the application I was conce
Thanx for sharing! One for the utility belt, I am sure I will be putting
this to use at one point or another. Every little bit helps you know,
G!
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Bryn Parrott wrote:
>
> For those to whom it might be useful, here is the wrapper cfc I used for
> java.io.FileWrit
For those to whom it might be useful, here is the wrapper cfc I used for
java.io.FileWriter which, in the application I was concerned with, attained a
10x performance improvement over under condition
that over 20,000 lines needed to be written out to a text file.
It aint nuthin special, but mi
> You still didn't answer the question. What is the version number of
> the JVM being used? This is very important. Anything less than 1.6.
> 0_10 is going to have performance issues.
>
Hi Wil,
In regards the JVM version, the original version I saw was 1.6.0_17.
I changed it to use the Adobe
>+1,000,000 for Jame's theory about string concatenation. CF is very
>inefficient at this. Doesn't matter much for small stuff and a few
>repeats, but for bulk, a Java buffer is the way to go.
>
Thanks to all those that ventured suggestions ...
There is a hint at what the eventual solution turn
>+1,000,000 for Jame's theory about string concatenation. CF is very
>inefficient at this. Doesn't matter much for small stuff and a few
>repeats, but for bulk, a Java buffer is the way to go.
>
Thanks to all those that ventured suggestions ...
There is a hint at what the eventual solution turn
+1,000,000 for Jame's theory about string concatenation. CF is very
inefficient at this. Doesn't amtter much for small stuff and a few
repeats, but for bulk, a Java buffer is the way to go.
Dave
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Bryn
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Bryn Parrott wrote:
> When I code this algorithm and execute in PHP 5 it runs in 7 seconds (give or
> take);
> When I code and excecute it in CF 8.0.0, it runs in around 74 seconds.
> Sonme might suggest this is difficult since I have deliberately not posted
> t
>If you're appending text line by line to a memory variable, you're
>probably having issues relating to java strings being immutable. If
>you're appending to a file each time, that's probably slowing you
>down.
>>> I was doing the latter e.g. appending to a file for each line. <<<
>
>Try the loop
You still didn't answer the question. What is the version number of the JVM
being used? This is very important. Anything less than 1.6.0_10 is going to
have performance issues.
Wil Genovese
Sr. Web Application Developer/
Systems Administrator
wilg...@trunkful.com
www.trunkful.com
On Oct 17,
Thanks to both Guido and James. I'll look into string handling/manipulation
used in the code implementation and see if some more efficient technique might
be useable.
Cheers and thanks all for the swift responses.
Cheers,
Bryn
> It's not always ColdFusion that is at issue. The JVM plays a huge
> role here. What is your JVM version? Oh, and why not update your
> version of CF as well?
Thanks Will...
Initially I saw that the JVM was set to a non-adobe JVM; and so I changed it
back to the standard ColdFusion8/runt
If you're appending text line by line to a memory variable, you're
probably having issues relating to java strings being immutable. If
you're appending to a file each time, that's probably slowing you
down.
Try the loop without writing any strings out and see what the
difference is. If that's fas
Just a guess but... If you are doing a lot of string manipulation CF can be
really slow. I don't know about CF 8 as I have not tried parsing large text
strings with it, but earlier versions were abysmal performance wise when it
came to string manipulation.
As far as CFC's and objects go, I have
It's not always ColdFusion that is at issue. The JVM plays a huge role here.
What is your JVM version? Oh, and why not update your version of CF as well?
Wil Genovese
Sr. Web Application Developer/
Systems Administrator
wilg...@trunkful.com
www.trunkful.com
On Oct 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, B
Dear All,
I have this algorithm that runs a query or two against a mySQL (5) database on
a Win 2003 (64Bit) server. The code loops over the query; assembles some text
and writes it out to a text file line by line. Fairly simple really. There
are lots of records.
When I code this algorithm
37 matches
Mail list logo