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
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
cfsaveContent
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 larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes,
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 larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
+1,000,000 for
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
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 larrycly...@gmail.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 towards PHP
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
) 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
+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 that
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
--
From: Wil Genovese jugg...@trunkful.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:06 AM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
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
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.
, 2010 2:06 AM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
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 literally served up 2.5 to 3
million user requests per day and each request
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:
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
the
+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 joch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010
+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 above - Java Buffer at what the
+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 above - Java Buffer at what the
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
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 cffile action='append'... under condition
that over 20,000 lines needed to be written out to a text file.
It
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 bryn_parr...@internode.on.net
wrote:
For those to whom it might be useful, here is the wrapper cfc
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
bryn_parr...@internode.on.net wrote:
For those to whom it might be useful, here is the wrapper cfc I used for
java.io.FileWriter which, in
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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 without
37 matches
Mail list logo
