This may have been asked already, but any difference in the query time on
CFMX?
At 01:27 AM 7/31/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Jesse/Sean,
> Below are the details of the code that is running slow on CFMX.
> Scenario (Problems seen in pages where #NO 1,3,4 exists(CPU average
>85-95% ).
>
> 1. Data/Content is saved in the database (SQL2k) as a WDDX
> See wddxpacket below. Items in the packet are
>--------------------------------------
>(ALTTAG,BODY,CONTENTITEMID,CONTENTTYPEID,DESCRIPTION,ERRORS,
>FILES,KEYWORDS,NAVTEXT,PUBLISHDATE,PUBLISHDAY,PUBLISHMONTH,
>PUBLISHYEAR,TITLE,UPLOADIMAGE,UPLOADPDF,USERNAME,VERSIONNUMBER,VERSIONSTATUS
>ID
>--------------------------------------
> 2. There is a backend server that creates and populates the
> CONTENT for
>wddxPacket..
> "We are NOT concerned with the backend".
>
> 3. Custom Tag used to get wddxPacket Data when passed the
> ContentItemID
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <cfsetting enablecfoutputonly="Yes">
> <!--- Initialize attributes --->
> <cfparam name="attributes.ContentItemID" default="">
> <cfparam name="attributes.returnStruct" default="">
> <!--- Get the content object from the database --->
> <cfquery name="qryData" datasource="#Request.DSN#" maxrows="1">
> SELECT WDDXPacket FROM ContentVersion
> WHERE ContentItemID = #Attributes.ContentItemID#
> AND VersionStatusID = 'PUB'
> </cfquery>
> <cfif qryData.recordcount>
> <!--- Deserialize the WDDX Packet --->
> <cfwddx action="WDDX2CFML" input="#qryData.WDDXPacket#"
> output="strTemp">
> <cfscript>
> // Pass the structure back to the caller
> x = Evaluate("caller.#Attributes.ReturnStruct# = strTemp");
> // Pass the successful boolean return code
> caller.bolReturnCode = 1;
> </cfscript>
> <cfelse>
> <cfset caller.bolReturnCode = 0>
> </cfif>
> <cfsetting enablecfoutputonly="No">
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>
> 4. Custom Tag Call in the dynamic page when passed
>(?ContentItemID=1,..7...,20....)
> -------------------------------------
> <CF_GetContentItem
> ContentItemID="#url.ContentItemID#"
> ReturnStruct="strProduct">
> -------------------------------------
>
> 5.Output Content
> -------------------------------------
> #strProduct.Title#,#strProduct.BODY# ....
> -------------------------------------
> 6.When we ran other sections of the application WITHOUT any WDDX..
> All of them ran ok and scaled quite well.
>
> 7. Load Test Results for CF5.0 and CFMX for ABOVE section of code
> gave the below results.
> CF5.0 CFMX
> Win2k Win2k
> 600 Mhx P3 2(Dual) 750Mhx P3 (NOTE.. Bigger box)
> Avg 12% CPU Avg 85%-95% CPU
>
> Any ideas why we are seeing CPU usage shoot up in CFMX?
>Joe
>
>****wddxPacket is stored in SQL2K as ntext(16) TYPE and can get upto 2-4
>pages long.****
>****WDDX in SQL2k saved in one FIELD(WDDXPacket) of the Table
>(ContentVersion)*******
><wddxPacket version='1.0'><header></header><data><struct><var
>name='ALTTAG'><string>MS Commercial</string></var><var
>name='BODY'><string><P>All MS&reg; models are made in the USA to
>the highest quality standards.</P><char code='0A'/><P>The
>MS&reg; Series grew out of our decades of experience with
>Highline<SUP>TM</SUP>, Trimline, and units combined with the
>time-proven technologies of The Asian&reg; series. All MS&reg;
>models are made in the USA to the highest quality standards. </P><char
>code='0A'/><H2>Key Distinguishing Feature</H2><char
>code='0A'/><P>North America</P><char code='0A'/><TABLE
>cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><char
>code='0A'/><TBODY><char code='0A'/><TR><char code='0A'/><TD
>class=headerWhite bgColor=#ff6633>Related Links and
>Brochures:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><char
>code='0A'/><P><A target=_new
>href="http://@url@/pdfs/P1903.pdf">The MS Series - Commercial
>(PDF)</A></P></string></var><var
>name='CONTENTITEMID'><string>11</string></var><var
>name='CONTENTTYPEID'><string>PMP</string></var><var
>name='DESCRIPTION'><string>MS Commercial have mechanical non-computing
>specifically designed for industrial, and fleet
>applications.</string></var><var name='ERRORS'><string></string></var><var
>name='FILES'><string>com.jpg,P103.pdf</string></var><var
>name='KEYWORDS'><string>, industrial, fleet, north
>america</string></var><var
>name='NAVTEXT'><string>MS-Commercial</string></var><var
>name='PUBLISHDATE'><dateTime>2002-3-7T0:0:0-5:0</dateTime></var><var
>name='PUBLISHDAY'><string>07</string></var><var
>name='PUBLISHMONTH'><string>3</string></var><var
>name='PUBLISHYEAR'><string>2002</string></var><var name='TITLE'><string>The
>MS Series - Commercial</string></var><var
>name='UPLOADIMAGE'><string>2A2.8_MS_com.jpg</string></var><var
>name='UPLOADPDF'><string>P1903.pdf</string></var><var
>name='USERNAME'><string>abc></var><var
>name='VERSIONNUMBER'><number>42</number></var><var
>name='VERSIONSTATUSID'><string>PUB</string></var></struct></data></wddxPacke
>t>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:17 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
>
>Joe-
>
> I'll weigh in here and try to make it simple:
>
>Q: What is different in WDDX?
>
>A: Everything. Every slice, splice and piece of code. Completely and totally
>different.
>
> What is changed in the syntax? Not much.
>
>
>The question everyone wants to know is: What code are you running that you
>are saying is slower than CF5?
>
>Much like the current thread on the loading of the text file: What is the
>template you are running that is going slow?
>
>Engineering/Development here in-house cannot fix a bug we cannot define, or
>identify.
>
>Saying "WDDX is slow" does nothing. Saying "WDDX translation given X and Y
>data is slow vs CF5" helps us more.
>
>This way, a bug can be entered, escalated and a patch can be generated.
>
>Jesse Noller
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Macromedia Server Development
>Unix/Linux "special guy"
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:08 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> >
> > >
> > > OK, that sounds like good progress so maybe we'll all stop ragging on
> > you
> > > :)
> > You havent given out any peformance tests.. other than MM Perf brief
> > I am NOT sure...you guys have any performance test for the details we
> > are talking about here...What can you expect from developers..?
> >
> > > Well, it's apples and oranges... in CF5, WDDX2CFML was written in C/C++
> > > and now it's completely rewritten in Java. It's just... different code.
> > I'
> > > m not on the product team so I don't have access to the source.
> >
> > Repeated... no spec details given. This news was public.. in NEO/Beta
> > releases.
> > What would be good information is some like... (eg IIF scales differently
> > in
> > CFMX Vs CF5.0)
> >
> > SO the question is : Are there any changes/updates made to
> > WDDX...in CFMX Vs CF5.0 (regardless of JAVA/C++ engine.. unicode)?
> > that can possibly make it run slower (like the COM issue) yet
> > Unknown(TESTING).
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> >
> >
> > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 08:54 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> > > > I havent come to a final test result.. but i think we are
> > > > narrowing
> > > > it
> > > > down to the Complex Object(WDDX) returned from the data store
> > > > that gets parsed out WDDX2CFML..
> > >
> > > OK, that sounds like good progress so maybe we'll all stop ragging on
> > you
> > > :)
> > >
> > > > Custom Tags are probably running ok/fast.. probably its the
> > WDDX
> > > > parsing..in CFMX that causes the CPU to run 80-90%... Atleast
> > we
> > > > are seeing a pattern here with tests.
> > >
> > > Hmm, interesting. That should be pretty easy to performance test.
> > >
> > > > Is it possible that you can find out..
> > > > How the Java Implementation of WDDX2CFML has changed in CFMX?
> > >
> > > Well, it's apples and oranges... in CF5, WDDX2CFML was written in C/C++
> > > and now it's completely rewritten in Java. It's just... different code.
> > I'
> > > m not on the product team so I don't have access to the source.
> > >
> > > > Any WDDX implementation changes(Not in docs) will be helpful.
> > >
> > > It's Unicode capable now - but that's just by virtue of it being
> > > implemented in Java. As far as I know, there were no specific behavioral
> > > changes (except what's in the release notes etc).
> > >
> > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
> > >
> > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
> > > -- Margaret Atwood
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
