You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Joshua Chamas <jo...@chamas.com> on 2000/12/12 04:56:03 UTC
Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Hey,
Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit
benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin!
The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench
If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately.
]# ./bench.pl -time=60
Test Name Test File Hits/sec Total Hits Total Time sec/Hits
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Apache::ASP hello.asp 414.1 24846 hits 60.00 sec 0.002415
Apache::Registry CGI Raw hello_raw.re 741.7 44502 hits 60.00 sec 0.001348
Apache::Registry CGI.pm hello.reg 500.0 30001 hits 60.00 sec 0.002000
HTML Static hello.html 1215.7 50000 hits 41.13 sec 0.000823
HTML::Embperl hello.epl 509.6 30579 hits 60.00 sec 0.001962
HTML::Mason hello.mas 385.9 23153 hits 60.00 sec 0.002592
ModPerl Handler hello.bench 885.8 50000 hits 56.45 sec 0.001129
Template Toolkit hello.tt 560.3 33622 hits 60.01 sec 0.001785
-- Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Posted by ne...@mediaone.net.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:14:56PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> newsreader@mediaone.net wrote:
> >
> > Could you please explain the differences between
> > CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of
> > CGI.
> The Raw CGI test makes no use of CGI.pm, just issues raw print
> statements that sets up the right CGI headers. Please note that the
> number that I reported showed a difference of .00065 seconds of system
> time per request between CGI.pm & Raw CGI HelloWorld, so I wouldn't much
> worry about the environment overhead.
Oh you meant cgi. CGI should be reserved for CGI.pm stuff.
I don't use CGI's html functions at all because I just
don't see much saving in terms of typing. I guess I am
in between your 'RAW' case and CGI.pm case
I only use CGI's param,header,cookie and redirect functions
and DISABLE_UPLOADS and POST_MAX variables. Given that
real handler is the second best performer after static
html I wonder how big of a step from using Registry to
writing a handler. I know I can rely on CGI because
it is time tested. I wonder whether there are CGI equivalent
modules if I don't use handler. I read earlier
that CGI alternatives have some problems.
>
> If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling
> all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance
> minded, I would use them frugally.
>
> --Josh
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Joshua Chamas wrote:
> > If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling
> > all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance
> > minded, I would use them frugally.
> >
> IIRC, CGI.pm is actually slower to run the functional syntax than the object
> syntax. This is because accessing CGI's functions end up getting dispatched
> through a complex autoload(ish) mechanism.
>
> I haven't benchmarked this though, so it's only theory!
It's documentated and benchmarked in the guide:
http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Object_Methods_Calls_vs_Functio
http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Are_All_Methods_Slower_than_Func
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org http://apachetoday.com http://logilune.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Posted by Jeremy Howard <jh...@fastmail.fm>.
Joshua Chamas wrote:
> If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling
> all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance
> minded, I would use them frugally.
>
IIRC, CGI.pm is actually slower to run the functional syntax than the object
syntax. This is because accessing CGI's functions end up getting dispatched
through a complex autoload(ish) mechanism.
I haven't benchmarked this though, so it's only theory!
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Posted by Joshua Chamas <jo...@chamas.com>.
newsreader@mediaone.net wrote:
>
> Could you please explain the differences between
> CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of
> CGI.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:56:03PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit
> > benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin!
> >
> > The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench
> > If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately.
> >
See http://www.chamas.com/bench/#perlcgi
The Raw CGI test makes no use of CGI.pm, just issues raw print
statements that sets up the right CGI headers. Please note that the
number that I reported showed a difference of .00065 seconds of system
time per request between CGI.pm & Raw CGI HelloWorld, so I wouldn't much
worry about the environment overhead.
If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling
all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance
minded, I would use them frugally.
--Josh
Re: Linux Hello World: TT Optimized...
Posted by ne...@mediaone.net.
Could you please explain the differences between
CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of
CGI.
Thanks
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:56:03PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Updated results from the other day with the Template Toolkit
> benchmark properly optimized, thanks Perrin!
>
> The reference for these numbers is at: http://www.chamas.com/bench
> If you would like the hello test suite, please email me separately.
>
> ]# ./bench.pl -time=60
>
> Test Name Test File Hits/sec Total Hits Total Time sec/Hits
> ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
> Apache::ASP hello.asp 414.1 24846 hits 60.00 sec 0.002415
> Apache::Registry CGI Raw hello_raw.re 741.7 44502 hits 60.00 sec 0.001348
> Apache::Registry CGI.pm hello.reg 500.0 30001 hits 60.00 sec 0.002000
> HTML Static hello.html 1215.7 50000 hits 41.13 sec 0.000823
> HTML::Embperl hello.epl 509.6 30579 hits 60.00 sec 0.001962
> HTML::Mason hello.mas 385.9 23153 hits 60.00 sec 0.002592
> ModPerl Handler hello.bench 885.8 50000 hits 56.45 sec 0.001129
> Template Toolkit hello.tt 560.3 33622 hits 60.01 sec 0.001785
>
> -- Josh
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
> NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
> http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051