thron7 wrote: > You're right, there's something inherently weird about this patch. My > own measurements do not match with my initial figures (using a different > platform, though). I undid it in trunk (r20591). BTW, your figures look > strange too (e.g. build times are *bigger* with cache than without - if > this were true the whole cache would be worthless).
That may be a little too late since it's undone, but here are our results for a ~400 classes application when using the file TreeLoader.py of r20582 and sticking with the 0.8.3 release for the other files. ./generate.py build (no cache) - 0.8.3 release: real 1m47.422s user 1m44.002s sys 0m1.792s Memory usage: ~50 MB ./generate.py build (no cache) - r20582: real 2m19.662s user 2m17.909s sys 0m1.612s Memory usage: ~550 MB ==================================================== ./generate.py source (no cache) - 0.8.3 release: real 0m38.235s user 0m37.466s sys 0m0.680s Memory usage: ~46 MB ./generate.py source (no cache) - r20582: real 0m40.432s user 0m39.554s sys 0m0.720s Memory usage: up to 280 MB The new version was always slower and used more memory. > Thanks to all for testing anyway. Thanks for trying to improve the build speed :) -- Loïc Bresson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
