Search Results

Search found 35507 results on 1421 pages for 'performance test'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 149/1421 | < Previous Page | 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156  | Next Page >

  • SQL Server Performance

    - by khan24
    I have tables in which 35000 to 40000 records are available. Inspite using ajax the performance of the website is very low. Can any body please suggest some ideas or tips for the problem. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Improving Javascript Load Times - Concatenation vs Many + Cache

    - by El Yobo
    I'm wondering which of the following is going to result in better performance for a page which loads a large amount of javascript (jQuery + jQuery UI + various other javascript files). I have gone through most of the YSlow and Google Page Speed stuff, but am left wondering about a particular detail. A key thing for me here is that the site I'm working on is not on the public net; it's a business to business platform where almost all users are repeat visitors (and therefore with caches of the data, which is something that YSlow assumes will not be the case for a large number of visitors). First up, the standard approach recommended by tools such as YSlow is to concatenate it, compress it, and serve it up in a single file loaded at the end of your page. This approach sounds reasonably effective, but I think that a key part of the reasoning here is to improve performance for users without cached data. The system I currently have is something like this * All javascript files are compressed and loaded at the bottom of the page * All javascript files have far future cache expiration dates, so will remain (for most users) in the cache for a long time * Pages only load the javascript files that they require, rather than loading one monolithic file, most of which will not be required Now, my understanding is that, if the cache expiration date for a javascript file has not been reached, then the cached version is used immediately; there is no HTTP request sent at to the server at all. If this is correct, I would assume that having multiple tags is not causing any performance penalty, as I'm still not having any additional requests on most pages (recalling from above that almost all users have populated caches). In addition to this, not loading the JS means that the browser doesn't have to interpret or execute all this additional code which it isn't going to need; as a B2B application, most of our users are unfortunately stuck with IE6 and its painfully slow JS engine. Another benefit is that, when code changes, only the affected files need to be fetched again, rather than the whole set (granted, it would only need to be fetched once, so this is not so much of a benefit). I'm also looking at using LabJS to allow for parallel loading of the JS when it's not cached. So, what do people think is a better approach? In a similar vein, what do you think about a similar approach to CSS - is monolithic better?

    Read the article

  • O(log N) == O(1) - Why not?

    - by phoku
    Whenever I consider algorithms/data structures I tend to replace the log(N) parts by constants. Oh, I know log(N) diverges - but does it matter in real world applications? log(infinity) < 100 for all practical purposes. I am really curious for real world examples where this doesn't hold. To clarify: I understand O(f(N)) I am curious about real world examples where the asymptotic behaviour matters more than the constants of the actual performance. If log(N) can be replaced by a constant it still can be replaced by a constant in O( N log N). This question is for the sake of (a) entertainment and (b) to gather arguments to use if I run (again) into a controversy about the performance of a design.

    Read the article

  • Can I use memcpy in C++ to copy classes that have no pointers or virtual functions

    - by Shane MacLaughlin
    Say I have a class, something like the following; class MyClass { public: MyClass(); int a,b,c; double x,y,z; }; #define PageSize 1000000 MyClass Array1[PageSize],Array2[PageSize]; If my class has not pointers or virtual methods, is it safe to use the following? memcpy(Array1,Array2,PageSize*sizeof(MyClass)); The reason I ask, is that I'm dealing with very large collections of paged data, as decribed here, where performance is critical, and memcpy offers significant performance advantages over iterative assignment. I suspect it should be ok, as the 'this' pointer is an implicit parameter rather than anything stored, but are there any other hidden nasties I should be aware of?

    Read the article

  • Would it be simply better to use the system's functions rather than use the language?

    - by Nullw0rm
    There are many scenarios where I've questioned PHP's performance with some of its functions, and whether I should build a complex class to handle specific things using its seemingly slow tools. For example, Complex regular expressions with sed and processing with awk would seemingly be exponential in performance rather than making PHP's regular expression and seemingly excessive functions parse and in time manage to finish it. If I were to do a lot of network tasks such as MX lookups/DIGging/retrieving simultaneously I would rather pass it via system() and let the OS handle it itself. There are simply too many functions in PHP, that are inefficient and result in slow pages or can be handled easier by the OS. What are your opinions? Do you think I should do the hard work with the OS in its own/custom functions?

    Read the article

  • VS2008 intellisense performance issue with large number of partial static classes

    - by scebula
    My question is a follow-up to the issue posted here regarding the Intellisense performance issue when building a large solution in VS2008 that has many partial static classes. Since Microsoft does not seem to be addressing the issue for VS2008, I would like to know if there are other ways around the problem? Waiting for VS2010 is not an option at this time. The proposed solution in the previous post is not practical as some of the partial classes may be regenerated and this would be a maintenance headache.

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test new code that uses a bunch of classes that cannot be instantiated in a test har

    - by trendl
    I'm writing a messaging layer that should handle communication with a third party API. The API has a bunch of classes that cannot be easily (if at all) instantiated in a test harness. I decided to wrap each class that I need in my unit tests with an adapter/wrapper and expose the members I need through this adapter class. Often I need to expose the wrapped type as well which I do by exposing it as an object. I have also provided an interface for for each or the adapter classes to be able to use them with a mocking framework. This way I can substitute the classes in test for whatever I need. The downside is that I have a bunch of adapter classes that so far server no other reason but testing. For me this is a good reason by itself but others may find this not enough. Possibly, when I write an implementation for another third party vendor's API, I may be able to reuse much of my code and only provide the adapters specific to the vendor's API. However, this is a bit of a long shot and I'm not actually sure it will work. What do you think? Is this approach viable or am I writing unnecessary code that serves no real purpose? Let me say that I do want to write unit tests for my messaging layer and I do now know how to do it otherwise.

    Read the article

  • In what circumstances can large pages produce a speedup ?

    - by timday
    Modern x86 CPUs have the ability to support larger page sizes than the legacy 4K (ie 2MB or 4MB), and there are OS facilities (Linux, Windows) to access this functionality. The Microsoft link above states large pages "increase the efficiency of the translation buffer, which can increase performance for frequently accessed memory". Which isn't very helpful in predicting whether large pages will improve any given situation. I'm interested in concrete, preferably quantified, examples of where moving some program logic (or a whole application) to use huge pages has resulted in some performance improvement. Anyone got any success stories ? There's one particular case I know of myself: using huge pages can dramatically reduce the time needed to fork a large process (presumably as the number of TLB records needing copying is reduced by a factor on the order of 1000). I'm interested in whether huge pages can also benefit more mundane applications though.

    Read the article

  • Inserting asyncronously into Oracle, any benefits?

    - by Karl Trumstedt
    I am using ODP.NET for loading data into Oracle. I am bulking inserts into groups of a 1000 rows each call. Is there any performance benefits in calling my load method asynchronously? So say I want to insert 10000 rows, instead of making 10 calls synchronously I make 10 calls asynchronously. My database is using ASSM right now but otherwise plenty of freelists are used of course. The database server has several cores as well. My initial tests seem to point to a performance increase, but maybe there is something I cannot see? Potential deadlock or contention issues? Of course, there is added complexity in handling transactions and such doing my load this way.

    Read the article

  • Project Euler #119 Make Faster

    - by gangqinlaohu
    Trying to solve Project Euler problem 119: The number 512 is interesting because it is equal to the sum of its digits raised to some power: 5 + 1 + 2 = 8, and 8^3 = 512. Another example of a number with this property is 614656 = 28^4. We shall define an to be the nth term of this sequence and insist that a number must contain at least two digits to have a sum. You are given that a2 = 512 and a10 = 614656. Find a30. Question: Is there a more efficient way to find the answer than just checking every number until a30 is found? My Code int currentNum = 0; long value = 0; for (long a = 11; currentNum != 30; a++){ //maybe a++ is inefficient int test = Util.sumDigits(a); if (isPower(a, test)) { currentNum++; value = a; System.out.println(value + ":" + currentNum); } } System.out.println(value); isPower checks if a is a power of test. Util.sumDigits: public static int sumDigits(long n){ int sum = 0; String s = "" + n; while (!s.equals("")){ sum += Integer.parseInt("" + s.charAt(0)); s = s.substring(1); } return sum; } program has been running for about 30 minutes (might be overflow on the long). Output (so far): 81:1 512:2 2401:3 4913:4 5832:5 17576:6 19683:7 234256:8 390625:9 614656:10 1679616:11 17210368:12 34012224:13 52521875:14 60466176:15 205962976:16 612220032:17

    Read the article

  • Propor usage of double and single quotes?

    - by Phox
    I'm talking about the performance increase here. From all I know you can echo variables in double quotes ("), like so: <?php echo "You are $yourAge years old"; ?> But single quotes will just return You are $yourAge years old. But what about performance differences? I've always gone by the rule that single quotes are faster because the PHP interpreter doesn't have to search through the string for variables. But I'm seeing more and more blog and forum posts on the web saying differently. Does anyone actually have any information on this subject? Perhaps benchmark tests or something? Cheers.

    Read the article

  • Does allocation speed depend on the garbage collector being used?

    - by jkff
    My app is allocating a ton of objects (1mln per second; most objects are byte arrays of size ~80-100 and strings of the same size) and I think it might be the source of its poor performance. The app's working set is only tens of megabytes. Profiling the app shows that GC time is negligibly small. However, I suspect that perhaps the allocation procedure depends on which GC is being used, and some settings might make allocation faster or perhaps make a positive influence on cache hit rate, etc. Is that so? Or is allocation performance independent on GC settings under the assumption that garbage collection itself takes little time?

    Read the article

  • Even lighter than SQLite

    - by Richard Fabian
    I've been looking for a C++ SQL library implementation that is simple to hook in like SQLite, but faster and smaller. My projects are in games development and there's definitely a cutoff point between needing to pass the ACID test and wanting some extreme performance. I'm willing to move away from SQL string style queries, allowing it to be code driven, but I haven't found anything out there that provides SQL like flexibility while also preferring performance over the ACID test. I don't want to go reinventing the wheel, and the idea of implementing an SQL library on my own is quite daunting, even if it's only going to be simple subset of all the calls you could make. I need the basic commands (SELECT, MODIFY, DELETE, INSERT, with JOIN, and WHERE), not data operations (like sorting, min, max, count) and don't need the database to be atomic, or even enforce consistency (I can use a real SQL service while I'm testing and debugging).

    Read the article

  • Proper usage of double and single quotes?

    - by Phox
    I'm talking about the performance increase here. From all I know you can echo variables in double quotes ("), like so: <?php echo "You are $yourAge years old"; ?> But single quotes will just return You are $yourAge years old. But what about performance differences? I've always gone by the rule that single quotes are faster because the PHP interpreter doesn't have to search through the string for variables. But I'm seeing more and more blog and forum posts on the web saying differently. Does anyone actually have any information on this subject? Perhaps benchmark tests or something?

    Read the article

  • Undefined test not working in javascript.

    - by James South
    I'm getting the error 'foo' is undefined. in my script when i test my function with an undefined parameter. As far as I understand, This shouldn't be happening. My calling code: //var foo var test = peachUI().stringIsNullOrEmpty(foo) ; My function (part of a larger framework). stringIsNullOrEmpty: function (testString) { /// <summary> /// Checks to see if a given string is null or empty. /// </summary> /// <param name="testString" type="String"> /// The string check against. /// </param> /// <returns type="Boolean" /> var $empty = true; if (typeof testString !== "undefined") { if (testString && typeof testString === "string") { if (testString.length > 0) { $empty = false; } } } return $empty; } Any ideas? Please note. I've had a good read of other similar questions before posting this one.

    Read the article

  • List comprehension, map, and numpy.vectorize performance

    - by mcstrother
    I have a function foo(i) that takes an integer and takes a significant amount of time to execute. Will there be a significant performance difference between any of the following ways of initializing a: a = [foo(i) for i in xrange(100)] a = map(foo, range(100)) vfoo = numpy.vectorize(foo) a = vfoo(range(100)) (I don't care whether the output is a list or a numpy array.) Is there a better way?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156  | Next Page >