Wouter wrote: >> What you're testing is a very fast operation. I found that if I >> increase the number of iterations by one order of magnitude the >> variance drops proportionately. > > Yes, sure. But sometimes the differences are such > that testing for tweaking a handler is not really reliable.
In-place profiling is hard. I wrote RevBench to allow easy comprison of snippets, but in many cases I need to test whole sequences of handlers. With the HyperRESEARCH application I develop for ResearchWare, last year I set out to remove some bottlenecks in legacy code. The best approach I found at the time was to add calls to a logging handler at he beginning and end of handlers I was profiling, noting the handler name, params, and millisecs. It took a few minutes to set up but told me what I needed to know. Before shipping I just commented the logging handler so it does nothing; if I need it again in the future it's one de-comment away. :) Not the most graceful solution but it got me through the day in the asence of a built-in profiler. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
