RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
Can I ask, which version of the server this is? In CF4 and 4.5, I know it's true, not done extensive (only simple) testing on 5 and not touched MX for this yet Philip Arnold Technical Director Certified ColdFusion Developer ASP Multimedia Limited Switchboard: +44 (0)20 8680 8099 Fax: +44 (0)20 8686 7911 www.aspmedia.co.uk www.aspevents.net An ISO9001 registered company. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ** -Original Message- From: Rob Baxter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 31 May 2002 18:07 To: CF-Talk Subject: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) Phillip, I'm not sure what you mean by naturally faster due to the way it's calling the custom tag. Anyway, I got curious about this and rigged up a very simple test. I wrote a simple custom tag which just displays the current time. The tag file is located in a directory which is both included in the custom tag paths of CFAdmin and also has a CF mapping to make it usuable with CFModule. I created two identical templates which looped and called the tag N times and used the GetTickCount function before and after the loop to see how long it took. The only difference in the templates is that in one loop I do cf_TestTag and in the other I do cfmodule template=/tags/TestTag.cfm. The results of this are listed below. Note that in between each test I restarted the cf service so as to clear out any kind of template mapping/caching CF might be doing. Testing was done on W2K Pro/IIS/CF5. 1 tag call: CF_ = 0-20 ms CFMODULE = 0-20 ms 10 tag calls: CF_ = 30 ms CFMODULE = 30 ms 100 tag calls: CF_ = 150 ms CFMODULE = 210 ms 1000 tag calls: CF_ = 1392 ms CFMODULE = 1913 ms 2000 tag calls: CF_ = 1422 ms CFMODULE = 2023 ms 1 tag calls: CF_ = 15262 ms CFMODULE = 20509 ms As you can see, the CF_ calling convention is consistently faster than cfmodule. Obviously this was not a perfect or even realistic test since I doubt you'd ever be calling the same tag 100 times on one page. Also, the custom tag file was at the root of the CustomTag path so CF did not have to scan subdirectories to find it (however there were 4 other custom tag paths installed on the server for whatever that's worth). Even on the first call to a template, where I might think cfmodule has an advantage due to the explicit template path, I was unable to find a consistant winner one way or the other. Based on what I've seen here I have a hard time supporting the statement that cfmodule is faster than cf_. Anyway, it was a fun way to kill a half hour. /rob -Original Message- From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:26 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Quick question on custom tags Are there any internal implemenation details which make cfmodule faster than the cf_ syntax, or was this what you were refering to? Just curious... CFMODULE naturally runs faster than CF_, it's to do with the way it's calling the custom tag There are general issues with using CF_ and the server caching the code, but that can be got around General advice is to use CFMODULE anyways, it doesn't look as pretty in the code, but it does work better Philip Arnold Technical Director Certified ColdFusion Developer ASP Multimedia Limited Switchboard: +44 (0)20 8680 8099 Fax: +44 (0)20 8686 7911 www.aspmedia.co.uk www.aspevents.net An ISO9001 registered company. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ** __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
Thanks for the info Rob. I'd point out though that using CFModule will allow developers to store their custom tags within a folder specific to their application (kinda like encapsulating the app under one root directory), without the need to have access to the CFAdmin. In cases where we don't have control of the server, this method wins out everytime - even if we need to take a performance hit (even if it is small). My thoughts Shawn Grover -Original Message- From: Rob Baxter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) Phillip, I'm not sure what you mean by naturally faster due to the way it's calling the custom tag. Anyway, I got curious about this and rigged up a very simple test. I wrote a simple custom tag which just displays the current time. The tag file is located in a directory which is both included in the custom tag paths of CFAdmin and also has a CF mapping to make it usuable with CFModule. I created two identical templates which looped and called the tag N times and used the GetTickCount function before and after the loop to see how long it took. The only difference in the templates is that in one loop I do cf_TestTag and in the other I do cfmodule template=/tags/TestTag.cfm. The results of this are listed below. Note that in between each test I restarted the cf service so as to clear out any kind of template mapping/caching CF might be doing. Testing was done on W2K Pro/IIS/CF5. 1 tag call: CF_ = 0-20 ms CFMODULE = 0-20 ms 10 tag calls: CF_ = 30 ms CFMODULE = 30 ms 100 tag calls: CF_ = 150 ms CFMODULE = 210 ms 1000 tag calls: CF_ = 1392 ms CFMODULE = 1913 ms 2000 tag calls: CF_ = 1422 ms CFMODULE = 2023 ms 1 tag calls: CF_ = 15262 ms CFMODULE = 20509 ms As you can see, the CF_ calling convention is consistently faster than cfmodule. Obviously this was not a perfect or even realistic test since I doubt you'd ever be calling the same tag 100 times on one page. Also, the custom tag file was at the root of the CustomTag path so CF did not have to scan subdirectories to find it (however there were 4 other custom tag paths installed on the server for whatever that's worth). Even on the first call to a template, where I might think cfmodule has an advantage due to the explicit template path, I was unable to find a consistant winner one way or the other. Based on what I've seen here I have a hard time supporting the statement that cfmodule is faster than cf_. Anyway, it was a fun way to kill a half hour. /rob -Original Message- From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:26 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Quick question on custom tags Are there any internal implemenation details which make cfmodule faster than the cf_ syntax, or was this what you were refering to? Just curious... CFMODULE naturally runs faster than CF_, it's to do with the way it's calling the custom tag There are general issues with using CF_ and the server caching the code, but that can be got around General advice is to use CFMODULE anyways, it doesn't look as pretty in the code, but it does work better Philip Arnold Technical Director Certified ColdFusion Developer ASP Multimedia Limited Switchboard: +44 (0)20 8680 8099 Fax: +44 (0)20 8686 7911 www.aspmedia.co.uk www.aspevents.net An ISO9001 registered company. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ** __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
-Original Message- From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:25 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) Can I ask, which version of the server this is? In CF4 and 4.5, I know it's true, not done extensive (only simple) testing on 5 and not touched MX for this yet Testing was done on W2K Pro/IIS/CF5. __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |1 tag calls: |CF_ = 15262 ms |CFMODULE = 20509 ms ok compare that to a UDF function or just including the the file as an cfinclude and you will see why OO is nice but plain old linear code is fast lots of overhead with cfmodule z -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAjz3tXwACgkQm98oI6K7h0jjogCgswkSD63N1VaMSaJ3xd5ggUn2 MwwAoNSt39l0WvqlS6pORX5W4OY4oLbA =WLWt -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
Good point Zac, For the curious I did the N=10,000 test with a udf (exact same functionality) replacing the custom tag. results: 10,000 calls in 1833 ms, or about 9 times as fast as cfmodule! /rob -Original Message- From: Zac Spitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |1 tag calls: |CF_ = 15262 ms |CFMODULE = 20509 ms ok compare that to a UDF function or just including the the file as an cfinclude and you will see why OO is nice but plain old linear code is fast lots of overhead with cfmodule z -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAjz3tXwACgkQm98oI6K7h0jjogCgswkSD63N1VaMSaJ3xd5ggUn2 MwwAoNSt39l0WvqlS6pORX5W4OY4oLbA =WLWt -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
How did you call the UDF? Was the UDF just written on the page, cfincluded, put into a memory scope, or some other method? At 02:04 PM 5/31/2002 -0400, you wrote: Good point Zac, For the curious I did the N=10,000 test with a udf (exact same functionality) replacing the custom tag. results: 10,000 calls in 1833 ms, or about 9 times as fast as cfmodule! /rob -Original Message- From: Zac Spitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |1 tag calls: |CF_ = 15262 ms |CFMODULE = 20509 ms ok compare that to a UDF function or just including the the file as an cfinclude and you will see why OO is nice but plain old linear code is fast lots of overhead with cfmodule z -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAjz3tXwACgkQm98oI6K7h0jjogCgswkSD63N1VaMSaJ3xd5ggUn2 MwwAoNSt39l0WvqlS6pORX5W4OY4oLbA =WLWt -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
the udf was cfincluded within the timed block but outside of the loop. /rob -Original Message- From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:52 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) How did you call the UDF? Was the UDF just written on the page, cfincluded, put into a memory scope, or some other method? At 02:04 PM 5/31/2002 -0400, you wrote: Good point Zac, For the curious I did the N=10,000 test with a udf (exact same functionality) replacing the custom tag. results: 10,000 calls in 1833 ms, or about 9 times as fast as cfmodule! /rob -Original Message- From: Zac Spitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:40 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |1 tag calls: |CF_ = 15262 ms |CFMODULE = 20509 ms ok compare that to a UDF function or just including the the file as an cfinclude and you will see why OO is nice but plain old linear code is fast lots of overhead with cfmodule z -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAjz3tXwACgkQm98oI6K7h0jjogCgswkSD63N1VaMSaJ3xd5ggUn2 MwwAoNSt39l0WvqlS6pORX5W4OY4oLbA =WLWt -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
Can I ask, which version of the server this is? In CF4 and 4.5, I know it's true, not done extensive (only simple) testing on 5 and not touched MX for this yet Testing was done on W2K Pro/IIS/CF5. OK, here's something VERY strange I tested it on 4 servers, each different hardware, slight variance in software, all Trusted Cache turned off; Intranet server (so lightly hit) PIII 1133, IIS, CF5, NT4; Module 4,666ms CF_ 4,376ms Include 4,948ms Dual PIII 1133, WebSite Pro, CF5, Win2k; Module 7,375ms CF_ 9,031 Include 7,344ms Dual PIII 850, WebSite Pro, CF5, NT4; Module 7,718ms CF_ 8,016ms Include 7,438ms Dual PIII 850, IIS, CF4.5, NT4; Module 5,625ms CF_ 5,547ms Include 4,969ms Now, I can't explain the major differences, especially the fact that on one server the CF_ use was MUCH slower, unless it was down to server use, but on 2/4, the CFMODULE, on the other 2, CF_ was faster Go figure... Philip Arnold Technical Director Certified ColdFusion Developer ASP Multimedia Limited Switchboard: +44 (0)20 8680 8099 Fax: +44 (0)20 8686 7911 www.aspmedia.co.uk www.aspevents.net An ISO9001 registered company. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ** __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
If I'm reading this correctly, the ones where CF_ is slower is on Website Pro. OT: Is Website Pro even supported? What's the big hoopla about it? I keep hearing about it, but ... I didn't see anything different than just running Apache, etc. ~Todd On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Arnold - ASP wrote: Intranet server (so lightly hit) PIII 1133, IIS, CF5, NT4; Module 4,666ms CF_ 4,376ms Include 4,948ms Dual PIII 1133, WebSite Pro, CF5, Win2k; Module 7,375ms CF_ 9,031 Include 7,344ms Dual PIII 850, WebSite Pro, CF5, NT4; Module 7,718ms CF_ 8,016ms Include 7,438ms Dual PIII 850, IIS, CF4.5, NT4; Module 5,625ms CF_ 5,547ms Include 4,969ms __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
If I'm reading this correctly, the ones where CF_ is slower is on Website Pro. Not all the time - the 4.5 one is faster on WSP, but since it's CF doing the work, how can WSP effect it? OT: Is Website Pro even supported? What's the big hoopla about it? I keep hearing about it, but ... I didn't see anything different than just running Apache, etc. Since it's not M$, the Script Kiddies don't attack it, it's got a really friendly GUI - well, the latest one requires an 800x600 screen... It's not REALLY popular, but those who like it, love it They're working on getting MX running on it as we speak Philip Arnold Technical Director Certified ColdFusion Developer ASP Multimedia Limited Switchboard: +44 (0)20 8680 8099 Fax: +44 (0)20 8686 7911 www.aspmedia.co.uk www.aspevents.net An ISO9001 registered company. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ** __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: cf_ vs cfmodule (was: Quick question on custom tags)
Not all the time - the 4.5 one is faster on WSP, but since it's CF doing the work, how can WSP effect it? Depends if there's a bottle neck between WSP / CF doesn't it? Just curious. __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
