RE: [CFCDev] Coldfusion Execution Times

Sun, 15 May 2005 13:37:32 -0700

Title: Re: [CFCDev] Coldfusion Execution Times
And from what i've heard, those reported timings aren't at all accurate - i think i remember someone said that CF has an accuracy of about +/- 16ms, so we see either 0, 16 or 31, and it means "roughly somewhere in there".
 
Honestly, i don't pay attention to them anymore. If a client says something about it being slow after i've done what i can on my end to a reasonable degree, i implement caching. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Micha Schopman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Micha Schopman
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Coldfusion Execution Times

Not to mention that execution time fluctuates very much. I have templates which run with 0ms and another refresh they do 16ms, and another time they do 30ms.
 
The biggest threads for performance should be looked into locking (scope locking instead of named locking), and database issues.
 
 

 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Ross
Sent: Sun 5/15/2005 4:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Coldfusion Execution Times

30-50 ms is nothing. If your users start complaining about fractions of
a second, maybe it's time to find new users! :)

What really matters is how the app performs under load. Grab one of the
free tools out there (JMeter, MS WAST, etc) and put 15-20 simultaneous
requests on it. You may find that the slower solution performs better
under load, or that the difference is negligable when the app is under
load.

-Dave


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/15/05 9:53 AM >>>
Hi guys,

When building your applications to what extent do you consider the total

execution time important for a page? Is there a target time to aim at?

Why do I ask? Well, my cfc/xml based solution runs slower by than my
non-cfc/string parsing solution by about 30/50 ms. From a
development/maintenance perspective I know I prefer the cfc/xml one but
30/50ms just seems like a lot.

My current thinking is 1) Look at speeding up the current implementaion
or 
2) Keep with cfc's but drop the xml and wrap my string-parsing logic
into a
cfc (so at least it's a bit more organised)

I'd love to hear other peoples view on this.

Cheers, Pete (aka lad4bear)




----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of
the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).

CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]





----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).

CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).

CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to