I've seen a CFMX box include 600 UDFS. The first hit was um... icky.
The second hit was as if nothing at all was being included. That being
said...
Yes, if you cfinclude ANYTHING, you slow the page down.
However, what you want to know is if it will have a _significant_
impact.
In my
10 - 20 on a typical site, damn, I've only ever used 2 :OP
Ade
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 October 2002 13:45
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: overhead for large UDF libraries?
I've seen a CFMX box include 600 UDFS. The first hit was um
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would not cfinclude 600 UDFs of course, but on a typical site that
uses maybe 10-20 UDFs, I wouldn't think twice about it.
Thanks Ray, just what I was after. A rule of thumb that enables me to
]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:58 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: overhead for large UDF libraries?
10 - 20 on a typical site, damn, I've only ever used 2 :OP
Ade
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 October 2002 13:45
To: CF-Talk
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:58 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: overhead for large UDF libraries?
10 - 20 on a typical site, damn, I've only ever used 2 :OP
Ade
-Original Message-
From
I can't speak to the internal mechanics of the cf-server, however, there may
be ways to perform rudimentary load testing on the library in question, for
instance, set a variable to gettickcount() prior to including the library,
then set a second variable to gettickcount() immediatly following the
I use the same udf libraries on every page of all sites. Knowing that
some function is always there greatly increases working efficiency, I
find. I also note that the CF debugging info always seems to state 0ms,
which puts it well down the list of possible efficiency issues for me.
7 matches
Mail list logo