On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Chris Colman <chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com>wrote:
> Obviously this isn’t a problem during debug with a single user but when > 1000s of pages need to be rendered each minute the time spent performing the > above operations may become significant. I haven’t done any benchmark > testing but from experience, the frequenct allocation and compiling of > collections and sorting can get CPU expensive and switching to a caching > alternative usually leads to significant performance improvements.**** > > It'd definitely be worth optimizing if we can prove it's a bottle-neck. But we try to avoid premature optimization. Can you put together some numbers to see what kind of processing load we're talking about? I'd be interested in seeing % of overall processing time under load. Something like "with X clients browsing Y pages per minute, each page render took an average R milliseconds, and Z milliseconds of this was in creating link URLs". Or something like that. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
