Performance Benchmarks

[Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,
Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
Thanks in advance for the help.

Thanks,
Munna.

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you want to record 1 specific pages you should just do that in
> Requestcycle.detach

Or add a post-request file scanner that records the page sizes from
the serialized instances on the filesystem.

Martijn

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>]

With the request logger you can turn on logging of the session size
*

boolean
* getRecordSessionSize()
if you want to record 1 specific pages you should just do that in
Requestcycle.detach
johan



On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:19, Vladimir K <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Can wicket help with estimating page size in bytes? (or in cucumbers if the
> size of a cucumber is defined). I would like to keep pages footprint in
> session as short as possible.
>
> P.S.
> JSF certainly can be slower than DB, especially when you use Seam and SFSB
> as a page backing bean. It is easy to understand if you know that you have
> several approaches to improve DB performance, just hire DBA and understand
> the lifecycles of your entities and put them into appropriate cache. From
> the other hand with JSF you just can do NOTHING. Just get rid of JSF (in
> favor of Wicket for instance). JSF is a perverted framework. It is like
> Visual Basic for the Java Web applications. It is just for designing hotel
> booking sites.
>
>
> uwe janner wrote:
> >
> > we did a performance comparison between wicket and jsf in january, and
> for
> > our usecases wicket was the clear winner (about factor 4). wicket was
> > nearly
> > as fast as our old struts implementation.
> > btw, we used wicket together with seam, which also did not add much to
> the
> > execution times.
> >
> > uwe.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Peter Thomas <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :)
> >>
> >> Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on
> >> performance and memory usage here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <
> >> jeremy@wickettraining.com
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Does this count?
> >> >
> >> > "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written
> >> > Sunday, April 26.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh.  I never put much faith in
> >> > other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically
> >> > little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X
> >> > over Z.  But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an
> >> > application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application.  And
> >> > I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications.  It's always the DB layer.
> >> >  Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer.  But
> >> > always the DB layer.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jeremy Thomerson
> >> > http://www.wickettraining.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Hi All,
> >> > > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
> >> > > Thanks in advance for the help.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Munna.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Performance-Benchmarks-tp23248583p23252707.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[Vladimir K <ko...@gmail.com>]

Can wicket help with estimating page size in bytes? (or in cucumbers if the
size of a cucumber is defined). I would like to keep pages footprint in
session as short as possible.

P.S.
JSF certainly can be slower than DB, especially when you use Seam and SFSB
as a page backing bean. It is easy to understand if you know that you have
several approaches to improve DB performance, just hire DBA and understand
the lifecycles of your entities and put them into appropriate cache. From
the other hand with JSF you just can do NOTHING. Just get rid of JSF (in
favor of Wicket for instance). JSF is a perverted framework. It is like
Visual Basic for the Java Web applications. It is just for designing hotel
booking sites. 


uwe janner wrote:
> 
> we did a performance comparison between wicket and jsf in january, and for
> our usecases wicket was the clear winner (about factor 4). wicket was
> nearly
> as fast as our old struts implementation.
> btw, we used wicket together with seam, which also did not add much to the
> execution times.
> 
> uwe.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Peter Thomas <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :)
>>
>> Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on
>> performance and memory usage here:
>>
>>
>> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <
>> jeremy@wickettraining.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Does this count?
>> >
>> > "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written
>> > Sunday, April 26.
>> >
>> > Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh.  I never put much faith in
>> > other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically
>> > little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X
>> > over Z.  But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an
>> > application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application.  And
>> > I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications.  It's always the DB layer.
>> >  Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer.  But
>> > always the DB layer.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Thomerson
>> > http://www.wickettraining.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Hi All,
>> > > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
>> > > Thanks in advance for the help.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Munna.
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-Benchmarks-tp23248583p23252707.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[uwe janner <uj...@googlemail.com>]

we did a performance comparison between wicket and jsf in january, and for
our usecases wicket was the clear winner (about factor 4). wicket was nearly
as fast as our old struts implementation.
btw, we used wicket together with seam, which also did not add much to the
execution times.

uwe.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Peter Thomas <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :)
>
> Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on
> performance and memory usage here:
>
>
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <
> jeremy@wickettraining.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Does this count?
> >
> > "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written
> > Sunday, April 26.
> >
> > Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh.  I never put much faith in
> > other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically
> > little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X
> > over Z.  But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an
> > application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application.  And
> > I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications.  It's always the DB layer.
> >  Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer.  But
> > always the DB layer.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Thomerson
> > http://www.wickettraining.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
> > > Thanks in advance for the help.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Munna.
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[Peter Thomas <pt...@gmail.com>]

LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :)

Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on
performance and memory usage here:

http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/

Hope this helps.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <jeremy@wickettraining.com
> wrote:

> Does this count?
>
> "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written
> Sunday, April 26.
>
> Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh.  I never put much faith in
> other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically
> little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X
> over Z.  But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an
> application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application.  And
> I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications.  It's always the DB layer.
>  Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer.  But
> always the DB layer.
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
> > Thanks in advance for the help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Munna.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>

Re: Performance Benchmarks

[Jeremy Thomerson <je...@wickettraining.com>]

Does this count?

"It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written
Sunday, April 26.

Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh.  I never put much faith in
other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically
little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X
over Z.  But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an
application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application.  And
I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications.  It's always the DB layer.
 Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer.  But
always the DB layer.

--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com




On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket?
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Thanks,
> Munna.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org