Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 11/29/08 10:47 AM, Malthe Borch wrote: >> I've also corrected a benchmark comparing performance between >> preparing Chameleon and ZPT for rendering (e.g. parsing/compilation >> steps). Chameleon is still quite slow on a cold boot (30 times >> slower), but when the cache is used (e.g. "warm boot"), there's only a >> factor of 1.25 to differ. > > How do I interpret that? Is chameleon only 1.25 faster than zpt when > rendering, or is there a compile penalty at every render?
No. This test only compares compilation and has nothing to do with rendering speed. Since we have class level caches in place, the compilation is only ever done once, no matter if you use persistent cache files or not. Rendering speed is still anywhere between 2x to 20x faster depending on the actual template. The 1.25x factor means: If you use a persistent filesystem cache which stores the compiled templates as pickles, the time it takes to load those pickles and execute them is 1.25 times slower in chameleon, than it takes ZPT to parse a template and generate the program code for it. The 30x slower factor included the time it takes chameleon to load the template, parse it via lxml, create an AST and turn it into byte-code, eventually pickling it to the file system for caching purposes. The persistent cache is there to cut down startup time for new processes, which is quite useful in development. Hanno --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "z3c.pt" group. To post to this group, send email to z3c_pt@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/z3c_pt?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
