Ok then will it have the same performance of an include? Robert Everland III Web Developer Extraordinaire Dixon Ticonderoga Company http://www.dixonusa.com
-----Original Message----- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:jedimaster@;macromedia.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Really bad cfc performance? A CFC has more overhead then a UDF simply because it has more features - access type, security (although you can use roles in UDFs defined in cffunction), state with the This scope, etc. It's not fair to expect a UDF call to 1-1 with a CFC method call when a CFC method has more going on. ======================================================================= Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Hire Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Everland [mailto:REverland@;dixonusa.com] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:34 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Really bad cfc performance? > > > Speed isn't everything, it's the only thing. > > Seriously though, what I would like to see is a time difference with 3 > algorithms that do the exact same thing. 1 done in CFC, one done in > UDF, and one done in inline code. If UDF and CFC execute the same, I > can handle that, > BUT if CFC is slower than UDF I must ask why. > > Robert Everland III > Web Developer Extraordinaire > Dixon Ticonderoga Company > http://www.dixonusa.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:jedimaster@;macromedia.com] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Really bad cfc performance? > > > > The code I sent was just to illustrate the fact that no matter how > > optimized the code is within a cfc, there is a minimum > amount of time > > a cfc is going to take to execute. > > Right - and this is to be expected. > > > Specifically what I was trying to optimize was a check to see of an > > email address was a duplicate, valid, and not in a remove > list. This > > would require 2 database queries and a run through the validate > > method. I eliminated the need for the two queries by using query of > > queries, but was unable to get barely any performance > gain...every cfc > > call is taking ~15ms, no matter what. > > 15ms seems a bit high. However, remember that the point here is > encapsulation. By having your 'isDupe' method stored in one central > location, you can easily update the code w/o worrying about other > templates that may have had their own versions. You could also add > security. I won't > go on - I love CFCs and it's obvious. > > The point remains the same. The _fastest_ code will almost > always be inline > code. However, speed isn't everything. > > -ray > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
