> As we all know, CFMX compiles to Java Bytecode and gets > cached this way. Therefore, CFMX should be considerably > faster than CF5. However, a friend of mine did a very > simple perfornance test using CFMX that had NO database > interaction (just looping and finding prime numbers) and > didn't see much of a speed increase.
Like the quote says, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. First, simple tests tend to, well, oversimplify things. Did your friend use a load testing tool? Or did he just run a single script? Second, if most of the work within the script is the result of a runtime calculation, why would you expect it to be significantly faster as a result of the script being compiled? The common thread here is that you have to be really careful when drawing conclusions from testing - your testing methodology and expectations will tend to get in the way if you're not careful. > Is there something special you have to do in the new cf > administrator to force it to cache these files as Java > classes/bytecode? No, they'll be cached on the filesystem automatically. They'll also be cached in memory, if you've got a positive value in the "Template Cache" setting in the CF Administrator large enough to hold all the files that are run. > This is CFMX Pro, not any of the J2EE versions. That doesn't make any significant difference for your purposes, I don't think. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
