Martin Krauskopf wrote:
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
(hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
"it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know. We
have a three or so days to square things away. One issue
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
(hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
"it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know. We
have a three or so days to square things away. One issue is adding 64
bit support
Christian Seiler wrote:
I just found out that jirb turns on ObjectSpace, so script/console it not
suited for benchmarking. Running without ObjectSpace the "Profile.new" test
performs blazingly fast (twice as fast as MRI!). "Profile.find" is about
20-30% slower, which I think is still pretty good.
Christian Seiler wrote:
>
> yes, uname -a: Linux cs-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic
> java 1.6.0_06-b02
>
> Best out of 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.times {Profile.find
> :first}}.total}
>
> Profile is a simple AR model (a few properties).
>
> I just noticed that 10.times {puts Benchmark
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
[...]
I've changed call:
RubyProc proc = RubyKernel.proc(recv, block);
to:
ThreadContext ctx = ThreadContext.newContext(recv.getRuntime());
RubyProc proc = RubyKernel.proc(ctx, recv, block);
Is that right? If yes, the original method could be taken back.
How
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Martin Krauskopf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas E Enebo wrote:
>> We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
>> (hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
>> "it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then ple
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
> We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
> (hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
> "it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know.
> We have a three or so days to square things away. One issue is
> addi
Daniel Berger wrote:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2610
We did do some work to improve read performance, and found that most of
the slowness in this bug was actually due to file opening. I'm thinking
about resolving this bug and filing two others: one for foreach being
slower than MR
Christian Seiler wrote:
I also checked Time.now, it's somewhat slower than on MRI. But 10.times
{puts Benchmark.measure {1.times {Testm.new }}.total} doesn't even hit
the database and leaves all properties nil, so there shouldn't be any
conversion or creation of time objects.
I did a little
Charles Oliver Nutter-2 wrote:
>
> Christian Seiler wrote:
>> I noticed that there is already an issue covering this topic:
>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2184
>>
>> JRuby is on-par with simple models (a few ints) with my setup so I tried
>> with ten datetime columns. JRuby is about 2
Christian Seiler wrote:
I noticed that there is already an issue covering this topic:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2184
JRuby is on-par with simple models (a few ints) with my setup so I tried
with ten datetime columns. JRuby is about 20% slower, please look at the
comment which I've ad
Charles Oliver Nutter-2 wrote:
>
> Christian Seiler wrote:
>> yes, uname -a: Linux cs-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic
>> java 1.6.0_06-b02
>>
>> Best out of 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.times {Profile.find
>> :first}}.total}
>>
>> Profile is a simple AR model (a few properties).
>>
>> I
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berger wrote:
On 7/14/08, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
(hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-ha
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Berger wrote:
>>
>> On 7/14/08, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
>>> (hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
Daniel Berger wrote:
On 7/14/08, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
(hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
"it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know. We
have a three or so days to
Re-run with pure Ruby mysql adapter just for contrast please? :)
-Tom
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Vladimir Sizikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Continuing with this (slightly-offtopic) theme... :)
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chr
Continuing with this (slightly-offtopic) theme... :)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Seiler wrote:
>>
>> yes, uname -a: Linux cs-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic
> Could you file a bug for that, with a simple model and benchmark script?
I had
Christian Seiler wrote:
yes, uname -a: Linux cs-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic
java 1.6.0_06-b02
Best out of 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.times {Profile.find
:first}}.total}
Profile is a simple AR model (a few properties).
I just noticed that 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.time
yes, uname -a: Linux cs-laptop 2.6.24-19-generic
java 1.6.0_06-b02
Best out of 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.times {Profile.find
:first}}.total}
Profile is a simple AR model (a few properties).
I just noticed that 10.times {puts Benchmark.measure {1.times
{Profile.new }}.total} i
On 7/14/08, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
> (hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
> "it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know. We
> have a three or so days to square things a
Christian, I saw that comment... what OS were you using (same ubuntu jdk6
setup?)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Christian Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just want mention that latest trunk really shows some speedups compared to
> 1.1.2. Some numbers benchmarking Rails ActiveRecord
>
>
Just want mention that latest trunk really shows some speedups compared to
1.1.2. Some numbers benchmarking Rails ActiveRecord
http://blog.huikau.com/2008/07/04/jruby-slowdown-from-rails-202-to-210/#comment-227
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
>
> We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of th
Paul Hammant wrote:
Tom,
You guys are great of course. Swiby* depends on a speedy Ruby -> Java
integration layer. If there are any issues in JIRA around the
performance (or bugs?) for this layer, then it would be super cool if
you could look into them in the days remaining :-)
The reason w
Tom,
You guys are great of course. Swiby* depends on a speedy Ruby -> Java
integration layer. If there are any issues in JIRA around the
performance (or bugs?) for this layer, then it would be super cool if
you could look into them in the days remaining :-)
* http://swiby.codehaus.org/
We plan on trying to release JRuby 1.1.3 by the end of the week
(hopefully on Thursday). If people have "must-haves" or
"it-would-be-dreadfully-nice-if" issues, then please let us know. We
have a three or so days to square things away. One issue is adding 64
bit support for Linux POSIX function
25 matches
Mail list logo
