I did a similar test in PHP. I made two identical includes, except one has a big block (~20 lines) of Lorem Ipsum comments at the top before the code. PHP took a significant (and consistent, proportionally) amount of time to process the commented version of the include. Important note, however, is that I do not have the Zend cacheing engine in the PHP install I tested on. I don't know if that would make a difference. Another interesting note is that I installed the Zend Optimizer and it actually INCREASED execution time by around 50-60 ms per test. Weird.
quick numbers: ~498 ms w/o comments (~50 bytes) on 1000 iterations ~751 ms w/ comments (~2.2 KB) on 1000 iterations And it was fairly consistent proportionally as I increased or decreased the iterations. I am not sure if I was very scientific. Does anyone have any links that talk about how to do benchmarking in a consistent way? Thanks, David Huyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "BORKMAN Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: RE: Performance cost of fusedoc (was: Fusedoc-ing Exceptions) | I think Lee F's question was about file access considerations. When a CF | template is first read, it is compiled and cached. When the compiled code | is run from the cache, the comments can have absolutely no effect. But if | you have trusted cache turned off, then the CFAS has to verify that the file | has not changed. So does it take any longer to verify this if the file size | is large? I don't believe so, but that would depend on exactly how the | AppServer/OS actually figures that out. I suspect that this decision is | simply made on the basis of looking at the date stamp and possibly the file | size, without having to actually read the file. | | Of course, surprise surprise, I could be wrong ;-) | | LeeBB | | | -----Original Message----- | From: Dray, Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | | | Lee Foster said: | | "I have an opinion style question. I know and understand the purpose of | fusedocs and by no way I'm I against it. (Trying to dodge any possible | bullets). Ok here is the question. On a web server with a heavy load is it | possible that the increase file size could cause or aid in performance | issues. In this case would it be better to create a separate file with the | fusedoc and make a single line reference in the template to it." | | My gut feeling was that CFAS munches through comments without skipping a | beat. I wrote a little test to verify this hunch. ... | | Both test pages run 50,000 iterations in 37 seconds on my development | server. I see no real difference between them. The time spent in the actual | inc_* files is negligible compared to the time in the test_* files. | | | | IMPORTANT NOTICE: | This e-mail and any attachment to it is intended only to be read or used by | the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged | information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any | mistaken transmission to you. If you receive this e-mail in error, please | immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not | disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended | recipient. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to | this e-mail or attachment to it. | | | | ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
