Jorey Bump wrote:
But going back to 3.2.10 hasn't restored the performance I was seeing earlier, so this may be a nonissue. I'll report back if there are any changes.
I tried a few more tests, cycling between versions. 3.2.10 still seems to be a little faster, but I've been able to reach similar numbers with 3.3, just less often.
This is consistent with Graham's expectations, so I wouldn't be overly concerned. I agree completely with Jim: "Make it work right, then make it work fast." I'm much more interested in the improvements available in 3.3.