Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread dcooper
How big are the PDF's (MB and # pages)? You could possibly be memory bound if they're very large and you could ease that by increasing MAXMEM, etc. One minute (60,000 milliseconds) per PDF is a very, very long time...somethings definitely not right there. Are these batched (ie one request seq

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
FYI, it seems to scale in a pretty linear fashion. I haven't taken it past a 100 page PDF yet mind Neil On 7/19/06, Neil Middleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, on average a single page PDF, quite heavy on the design side was > taking around 2-300 ms excluding queries. I'm currently p

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
Yes, on average a single page PDF, quite heavy on the design side was taking around 2-300 ms excluding queries. I'm currently putting it together to make one multipage PDF for a printer, so it will be interesting to see how long that takes. On 7/19/06, Munson, Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

RE: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Munson, Jacob
Neil, I've never used report builder, but I've been curious about it lately. When you guys are talking about report generation, I'm assuming you mean building a bunch of PDFs that are put on the server for user consumption. Is that what you're doing? And you got this down to less than a second,

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
Suprisingly not much... On 7/19/06, Tom Chiverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 11:37, Neil Middleton wrote: > > However, I did notice the original report I have been given contained > > TIF's. Replacing these with JPG's made the generation time drop to less > > than a

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Tom Chiverton
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 11:37, Neil Middleton wrote: > However, I did notice the original report I have been given contained > TIF's. Replacing these with JPG's made the generation time drop to less > than a second. :-) Bet the files are a fair bit smaller too :-) -- Tom Chiverton **

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
Enterprise. On 7/19/06, JediHomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What version of CF are you using? Pro or Enterprise, because if > memory serves me correctly there is a lot more optimisation/thread > usage for PDF creation in the Enterprise version. > > > On 19/07/06, Neil Middleton <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
Well, I am now caching the queries between requests, so I have effectively ruled that out of the equation. However, I did notice the original report I have been given contained TIF's. Replacing these with JPG's made the generation time drop to less than a second. :-) Thanks for the help anyway.

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Andy Allan
I'm assuming it's the actual PDF generation thats causing the issue? If you run the queries on their own they spew out the data in a timely fashion? Out of interest, have you tried to see if flashpaper generation is quicker? Andy On 19/07/06, Neil Middleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I t

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Neil Middleton
Yeah, I thought of trying both of these. The trouble I'm having is that generating a single PDF page with the "high-performance" reporting (all queries done outside the report) is taking longer than if I were to crack out the crayons and draw it out myself. On 7/19/06, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread Andy Allan
Depending on your requirements and environment, one possible way to deal with this is: 1) Dedicated instance just for reporting 2) Use asynch gateway to hand off the report generation and then forget about it. Of course, you need Ent for this. Andy On 19/07/06, Neil Middleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CFReport performance

2006-07-19 Thread JediHomer
What version of CF are you using? Pro or Enterprise, because if memory serves me correctly there is a lot more optimisation/thread usage for PDF creation in the Enterprise version. On 19/07/06, Neil Middleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anyone have any experience of bad performance when ge