> I was playing around with HTMLTidy in both the EXE and the
> COM version, running them side by side in a loop to see what
> the difference in speed was (the TidyCOM object is just a
> wrapper for the EXE). I put them both in a loop, performing
> an operation using CFEXECUTE with the exe, then performing
> the equivalent operation using CFOBJECT and outputting (via
> gettickcount()) their execution times. Running this loop
> through 10 iterations, I got the following response curve:
>
> COM: 8542 | EXE: 2794
> COM: 661 | EXE: 40
> COM: 140 | EXE: 50
> COM: 391 | EXE: 50
> COM: 370 | EXE: 21
> COM: 300 | EXE: 20
> COM: 180 | EXE: 40
> COM: 191 | EXE: 20
> COM: 170 | EXE: 30
> COM: 160 | EXE: 10
>
> I understand why one gets the drastic decrease in response
> time on the COM object on the second and third hits (and given
> the money MS has poured into COM and COM+ I would expect no
> less), but I don't understand why one gets the drastic decrease
> in response time ON THE EXE on the second hit. Does ColdFusion
> cache executables in memory, or use any other similar method?
CF doesn't cache executables in memory, but you should still expect that it
would take significantly less time on the second try. Caching is used on
nearly every level of a computer's operation - the operating system provides
caching, databases provide caching, the processor itself provides caching.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
