On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 10:23 -0600, Paul Seamons wrote: > The benchmark_template.pl was sent as a reply to that same thread. But to > make things easy here it is again - and with the results as an attachment > (the results are also embedded in the benchmark_template.pl).
I can't tell what this first column (where results are closest) is. It says "New object each time (undef CACHE_SIZE)" but it can't be making a new object each time, since it has the best performance. It looks like file_TT() in your benchmark does what I would expect someone who cares about the performance to do, i.e. keep a TT object around so it can cache. Was it using the XS stash in the run that gave these numbers? > And please note that these tests are benchmarking simple short chunks of TT > syntax. Longer templates may even out or nullify any performance benefits. Have you tried any longer templates? > In otherwords - don't use benchmarks for judging too much about a program Sure, but since the primary reason I'd consider switching to using your module is the performance, it is pretty important to know if it's likely to really be faster or not. Do you have support for TT plugins or equivalents for any of the common ones? - Perrin _______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
