5.8 !!TWICE!! slower at startup than 5.7 under any perl version. This
is annoying because i have 100 models and i do not want to wait 10
secs while it is starting in debug.
2009/9/29 Tomas Doran bobtf...@bobtfish.net:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
It's interesting to note the headline figures have
On 29 Sep 2009, at 22:12, Oleg Pronin wrote:
5.8 !!TWICE!! slower at startup than 5.7 under any perl version. This
is annoying because i have 100 models and i do not want to wait 10
secs while it is starting in debug.
Patches welcome to optimise things for your wacky use-case given
i meant 100 resultsources+controllers :-) not models
2009/9/30 Tomas Doran bobtf...@bobtfish.net:
On 29 Sep 2009, at 22:12, Oleg Pronin wrote:
5.8 !!TWICE!! slower at startup than 5.7 under any perl version. This
is annoying because i have 100 models and i do not want to wait 10
secs while
Tomas Doran wrote:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316
tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps.
The very important thing you haven't noted (unless I missed it) is what
perl version this benchmark was conducted under.
Ah, sorry, I didn't
Possibly related anecdote. My main personal app went from 5 second
start ups to start ups of well over a minute when I went from 5.7 to
5.8. I had a handful of Controller and Model classes in which I had
written test code and then removed it all so they looked something like-
package
Tomas Doran wrote:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316
tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps.
The very important thing you haven't noted (unless I missed it) is what
perl version this benchmark was conducted under.
Some benchmarking was
Fayland Lam wrote:
I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8
I have a vested interest in knowing the difference between the two
versions as well, so knocked up a proper test.
I have two identical virtual machines, only on one I installed
Catalyst::Runtime
Toby Corkindale wrote:
It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316
tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps.
Memory usage (for this small app) has increased by 4MB, but is
presumably shared. I guess I should look into that more.
Here are some new analysis of memory usage on
