Unless I am going crazy... 7602 / 69 = 110 ?? The inline code ran a bit faster on my machine...just about 3x ;)
In my real world code, I ended up pulling the function tags out of the CFC and putting them inline. I got about a 2x performance boost just from that. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Sean. -- jon mailto:jonhall@;ozline.net Friday, November 8, 2002, 8:10:04 PM, you wrote: SAC> Here's what I see for 5000 iterations: SAC> 7602 ms - cfc SAC> 69 ms - inline SAC> 160 ms - UDF on this page SAC> 148 ms - included UDF SAC> So that's about a 2-3x factor for a UDF and a 10-11x factor for a CFC. SAC> Not sure where you got '350' from. Don't forget that on the first hit, SAC> the CFC needs to be compiled so you need to get the timings from second SAC> and subsequent runs. SAC> A CFC invocation is taking about 1.5ms - which isn't bad considering SAC> it's resolving the reference and calling out to another .class file SAC> with all the overhead you might expect on that sort of thing. It does, SAC> however, seem a little strange that the difference between a UDF and a SAC> CFC invocation is so dramatic. I'll ask some of the product team folks SAC> to comment. SAC> Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ SAC> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." SAC> -- Margaret Atwood SAC> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 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
