No problem, I hope it helps! I just tried it with 1.0RC2: Same thing.
460k take almost 10 seconds to render.

On Jul 11, 2:23 pm, Jim Gay <j...@saturnflyer.com> wrote:
> Wow. Thanks so much for putting this together.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Johannes Fahrenkrug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jfahrenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
>
> > I have created both a 0.8.1 and 0.9.1 demo project that showcases the
> > significant performance 
> > decline:https://github.com/jfahrenkrug/Radiant-Performance-Decline
>
> > Rendering 460k of plain text with Radiant 0.8.1 takes 32ms. Rendering
> > the same text with Radiant 0.9.1 takes 9400ms(!!!).
>
> > I hope this project helps you to find the bottleneck.
>
> > Thanks and cheers,
>
> > Johannes
>
> > On Jul 7, 12:11 pm, Johannes Fahrenkrug <jfahrenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Jim,
>
> >> thanks for your reply. It's a client project, so I have to see what
> >> information I can give out. I have the feeling Radius got slower.
>
> >> I'll report back.
>
> >> - Johannes
>
> >> On Jul 5, 3:27 pm, Jim Gay <j...@saturnflyer.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I've not seen this. Can you post some stats and some code to help figure 
> >> > it out?
>
> >> > Perhaps there were changes that only affect performance in a situation
> >> > like that of your site (however it is setup) and we're finding the
> >> > edge.
>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Johannes Fahrenkrug
>
> >> > <jfahrenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
>
> >> > > we have a big site running on Radiant 0.8.2. Internally we're moving
> >> > > the site to Radiant 0.9.1. That worked nicely, but most pages need
> >> > > about 1 sec (!) longer to render. Most pages have lots of parts and
> >> > > snippets.
>
> >> > > Are there any known changes from 0.8 to 0.9 that would explain this
> >> > > performance impact?
>
> >> > > Thanks and cheers,
>
> >> > > Johannes
>
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Gay
> >> > Saturn Flyer LLChttp://www.saturnflyer.com
> >> > 571-403-0338
>
> --
> Jim Gay
> Saturn Flyer LLChttp://www.saturnflyer.com
> 571-403-0338

Reply via email to