per request, which is practically immeasurable by CF (if I recall correctly,
CF can't accurately handle time increments smaller than 10 milliseconds). I
would question whether that's a significant performance increase, especially
given the second point above.
Just a note on this: the bug is basically that you never see value of 1-9 -
only 0, 10 or more than 10. (and I think it's actually an OS problem on
Windows, not a CF issue - can any Linux/Unix user confirm the bug on their
platform?)
After the 10 ms threshold is reached timings are accurate.
This is exactly the reason that you do may operations in a loop when testing
this stuff - you need to get things out of that initial 10ms "gray area".
Basically any timings higher than 10 ms are "trustworthy" since it's not the
individual operations being timed but the interval between the reports.
All that being said I agree completely that 3 ms in an artificial test is
nothing to base a conclusion on - you'll never see a practical ramification
of the difference.
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
