Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Jeremy Howard wrote: Joshua Chamas wrote: If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance minded, I would use them frugally. IIRC, CGI.pm is actually slower to run the functional syntax than the object syntax. This is because accessing CGI's functions end up getting dispatched through a complex autoload(ish) mechanism. I haven't benchmarked this though, so it's only theory! It's documentated and benchmarked in the guide: http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Object_Methods_Calls_vs_Functio http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Are_All_Methods_Slower_than_Func _ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://logilune.com/ http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:14:56PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please explain the differences between CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of CGI. The Raw CGI test makes no use of CGI.pm, just issues raw print statements that sets up the right CGI headers. Please note that the number that I reported showed a difference of .00065 seconds of system time per request between CGI.pm Raw CGI HelloWorld, so I wouldn't much worry about the environment overhead. Oh you meant cgi. CGI should be reserved for CGI.pm stuff. I don't use CGI's html functions at all because I just don't see much saving in terms of typing. I guess I am in between your 'RAW' case and CGI.pm case I only use CGI's param,header,cookie and redirect functions and DISABLE_UPLOADS and POST_MAX variables. Given that real handler is the second best performer after static html I wonder how big of a step from using Registry to writing a handler. I know I can rely on CGI because it is time tested. I wonder whether there are CGI equivalent modules if I don't use handler. I read earlier that CGI alternatives have some problems. If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance minded, I would use them frugally. --Josh
Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Hey,
Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit
benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin!
The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench
If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately.
]# ./bench.pl -time=60
Test Name Test FileHits/sec Total Hits Total Time sec/Hits
Apache::ASP hello.asp 414.1 24846 hits 60.00 sec0.002415
Apache::Registry CGI Raw hello_raw.re 741.7 44502 hits 60.00 sec0.001348
Apache::Registry CGI.pm hello.reg 500.0 30001 hits 60.00 sec0.002000
HTML Static hello.html 1215.7 5 hits 41.13 sec0.000823
HTML::Embperl hello.epl 509.6 30579 hits 60.00 sec0.001962
HTML::Mason hello.mas 385.9 23153 hits 60.00 sec0.002592
ModPerl Handler hello.bench 885.8 5 hits 56.45 sec0.001129
Template Toolkit hello.tt 560.3 33622 hits 60.01 sec0.001785
-- Josh
_
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com1-714-625-4051
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Could you please explain the differences between
CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of
CGI.
Thanks
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:56:03PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
Hey,
Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit
benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin!
The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench
If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately.
]# ./bench.pl -time=60
Test Name Test FileHits/sec Total Hits Total Time
sec/Hits
Apache::ASP hello.asp 414.1 24846 hits 60.00 sec
0.002415
Apache::Registry CGI Raw hello_raw.re 741.7 44502 hits 60.00 sec
0.001348
Apache::Registry CGI.pm hello.reg 500.0 30001 hits 60.00 sec
0.002000
HTML Static hello.html 1215.7 5 hits 41.13 sec
0.000823
HTML::Embperl hello.epl 509.6 30579 hits 60.00 sec
0.001962
HTML::Mason hello.mas 385.9 23153 hits 60.00 sec
0.002592
ModPerl Handler hello.bench 885.8 5 hits 56.45 sec
0.001129
Template Toolkit hello.tt 560.3 33622 hits 60.01 sec
0.001785
-- Josh
_
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com1-714-625-4051
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please explain the differences between CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of CGI. Thanks On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:56:03PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote: Hey, Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin! The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately. See http://www.chamas.com/bench/#perlcgi The Raw CGI test makes no use of CGI.pm, just issues raw print statements that sets up the right CGI headers. Please note that the number that I reported showed a difference of .00065 seconds of system time per request between CGI.pm Raw CGI HelloWorld, so I wouldn't much worry about the environment overhead. If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance minded, I would use them frugally. --Josh
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Joshua Chamas wrote: If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance minded, I would use them frugally. IIRC, CGI.pm is actually slower to run the functional syntax than the object syntax. This is because accessing CGI's functions end up getting dispatched through a complex autoload(ish) mechanism. I haven't benchmarked this though, so it's only theory!
