Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
> Per your request:
>
> The handler:
>
> query | avtime completed failed rps
> -----------------------------------------------
> single_print | 110 5000 0 881
> here_print | 111 5000 0 881
> list_print | 111 5000 0 880
> concat_print | 111 5000 0 873
> multi_print | 119 5000 0 820
> -----------------------------------------------
not very much difference once stuck in a handler.
obviously multi_print is both ugly and slow, but the rest should be used by the
discretion of the programmer based on the one that is easiest to maintain in
the code.
>
>
> The benchmark unbuffered:
> single_print: 2 wallclock secs ( 2.44 usr + 0.31 sys = 2.75 CPU)
> here_print: 4 wallclock secs ( 2.34 usr + 0.54 sys = 2.88 CPU)
> list_print: 8 wallclock secs ( 7.06 usr + 0.43 sys = 7.49 CPU)
> concat_print: 9 wallclock secs ( 8.95 usr + 0.66 sys = 9.61 CPU)
> multi_print: 22 wallclock secs (16.94 usr + 5.74 sys = 22.68 CPU)
>
> The benchmark unbuffered:
should this say "The benchmark buffered"??
>
> single_print: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.70 usr + 0.02 sys = 1.72 CPU)
> here_print: 1 wallclock secs ( 1.78 usr + 0.01 sys = 1.79 CPU)
> list_print: 7 wallclock secs ( 6.44 usr + 0.05 sys = 6.49 CPU)
> concat_print: 9 wallclock secs ( 8.04 usr + 0.06 sys = 8.10 CPU)
> multi_print: 10 wallclock secs (10.56 usr + 0.09 sys = 10.65 CPU)
>
> The interesting thing is that list_print and concat_print are quite bad in
> the benchmark but very good in the handler. The rest holds.
--
___cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
