> "Andy" == Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andy> Have a look at Template::Timer:
Andy>http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Template-Timer-0.04/Timer.pm
I also use this profiling harness. When I'm in development, the URL fires up
this CGI (or Apache::Registry) script, which trigger
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless you're doing something computationally expensive (in which case,
> you're better off writing it as a Perl subroutine or plugin) then it's
> unlikely (but not impossible) that the template rendering is a problem
> by
Chris Travers wrote:
> About 8 minutes for the template on my dev system.
Wow, that *is* a long time.
> The areas I am currently suspicious of include blocks which generate
PROCESS will be faster than INCLUDE.
>
You would be better off writing that as a perl sub and passing it into
the temp
Chris Travers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The areas I am currently suspicious of include blocks which generate
> inputs (since there are approx 5k inputs on the page when this
> occurs), and the use of the following tag which gets executed pr
> "Josh" == Josh Rosenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josh> Above you mention generating 5k inputs. If you mean HTML inputs, that
Josh> could explain why the client was waiting 40 minutes. Browsers take
Josh> render times too and some have a very hard time rendering lots of
Josh> inputs. (In
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Randal L. Schwartz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Josh" == Josh Rosenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Josh> Above you mention generating 5k inputs. If you mean HTML inputs, that
> Josh> could explain why the client was waiting 40 minutes. Browsers take
> Jo
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Josh" == Josh Rosenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Josh> Above you mention generating 5k inputs. If you mean HTML inputs, that
> Josh> could explain why the client was waiting 40 minutes. Browsers take
> Josh> render times too and some have a very hard time r
Wow, how wrong was I on my last post :-)
Chris Travers wrote:
[snip description]
> The typical workflow is that the user gets a list of vendors not to
> pay, locates them, unchecks the box, locates any vendors which should
> only receive a partial payment, enters information as to which
> invoic
Simon Wilcox wrote:
> that 'lsmb' might be some bio term and that inputs are the inputs to an
> experiment ?
I guess "Ledger SMB". But then google helped me. :-)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01279.html
A
___
templates mailing
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Wilcox wrote:
>> that 'lsmb' might be some bio term and that inputs are the inputs to an
>> experiment ?
>
> I guess "Ledger SMB". But then google helped me. :-)
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg
Just letting everyone know, I believe I have resolve the performance
problems in the template. The following two changes appear to have
cut the time on the dev box from around 8 minutes to about 90 sec:
1) Got rid of number formatting in the template.
2) Got rid of the following thing that turn
8 min down to 90 seconds sounds like a great improvement, but still, if
I had a template that takes 90 seconds to render I'd stop doing any
matters of software... :-p
It's too damn much. No, it's horrible. Anything more than 2 seconds is
too damn much. TT rocks because it's extremely fast even
Hi,
> 8 min down to 90 seconds sounds like a great improvement, but still, if
> I had a template that takes 90 seconds to render I'd stop doing any
> matters of software... :-p
>
> It's too damn much. No, it's horrible. Anything more than 2 seconds is
> too damn much. TT rocks because it's extre
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Mihai Bazon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8 min down to 90 seconds sounds like a great improvement, but still, if
> I had a template that takes 90 seconds to render I'd stop doing any
> matters of software... :-p
>
> It's too damn much. No, it's horrible. Anything
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just letting everyone know, I believe I have resolve the performance
> problems in the template. The following two changes appear to have
> cut the time on the dev box from around 8 minutes to about 90 sec
Certainly makes
Chris Travers wrote:
> For most web pages (99%) I would agree with you. However, in this
> specific case, 90 secs is at least tolerable within the context of the
> total work flow. At least this gets us going and we can look for a
> more comprehensive solution once the showstoppers are resolved.
16 matches
Mail list logo
