> From: Christian Haul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Performance problem XSP after April 20
... > I've re-run the test using the "content" view, thus eleminating the > transformation step (but using a different serializer!). > > "current" > simple 261 213 243 244 260 170 244 182 200 226 > "224.3" > request 492 310 261 235 164 98 104 111 106 101 > "198.2" > esql 260 144 164 270 246 87 93 86 91 89 "153.0" > samples "19 > 6" > > "current?cocoon-view=content" > simple 112 114 138 97 171 77 132 86 112 104 > "114.3" > esql 138 138 138 139 110 113 106 104 101 112 "119.9" > request 264 148 131 146 131 76 122 139 116 117 > "139.0" > > > "2002-04-20" > samples 20 35 17 22 17 17 23 17 18 36 "22.2" > simple 32 39 36 29 27 28 36 34 36 26 "32,3" > request 107 223 73 102 99 49 55 51 58 50 "86.7" > esql 119 122 142 127 41 40 46 39 47 35 "75.8" > > "2002-04-20?cocoon-view=content" > simple 16 13 13 46 12 12 12 22 12 12 "17.0" > esql 74 18 20 22 17 18 15 16 18 30 "24.8" > request 14 13 13 12 12 19 12 12 11 12 "13.0" > > Oh, I've redone the "simple" test because it had a great variance in > it. In general, variance is quite large. Occasionally, times around > 500 ms appear within a sequence of 30 ms. Chris, What you use to measure time? I timed executing of simple.xsp in Cocoon "-D 20020420" and in Cocoon 2.0.4-dev with the "for() time wget", and compared time reported by the Cocoon in access.log. After factoring out additional complexities in excalibur code (responsible for 8-9% performance loss), results were *identical*. PS I did not test HEAD though. PPS CVS command syntax is bit different from what you wrote: cvs -q checkout -D 20020420 xml-cocoon2 Vadim > Chris. > -- > C h r i s t i a n H a u l > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > fingerprint: 99B0 1D9D 7919 644A 4837 7D73 FEF9 6856 335A 9E08 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
