Search Results

Search found 13249 results on 530 pages for 'virtualized performance'.

Page 170/530 | < Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >

  • Why is my regex so much slower compiled than interpreted ?

    - by miket2e
    I have a large and complex C# regex that runs OK when interpreted, but is a bit slow. I'm trying to speed this up by setting RegexOptions.Compiled, and this seems to take about 30 seconds for the first time and instantly after that. I'm trying to negate this by compiling the regex to an assembly first, so my app can be as fast as possible. My problem is when the compiling delay takes place: Regex myComplexRegex = new Regex(regexText, RegexOptions.Compiled); MatchCollection matches = myComplexRegex.Matches(searchText); foreach (Match match in matches) // <--- when the one-time long delay kicks in { } This is making compiling to an assembly basically useless, as I still get the delay on the first foreach call. What I want is for all the compiling delay to be done in advance when I compile to the assembly, not when the user runs the app. Where am I going wrong ? (The code I'm using to compile to an assembly is similar to http://www.dijksterhuis.org/regular-expressions-advanced/ , if that's relevant ).

    Read the article

  • C#: How to implement a smart cache

    - by Svish
    I have some places where implementing some sort of cache might be useful. For example in cases of doing resource lookups based on custom strings, finding names of properties using reflection, or to have only one PropertyChangedEventArgs per property name. A simple example of the last one: public static class Cache { private static Dictionary<string, PropertyChangedEventArgs> cache; static Cache() { cache = new Dictionary<string, PropertyChangedEventArgs>(); } public static PropertyChangedEventArgs GetPropertyChangedEventArgsa(string propertyName) { if (cache.ContainsKey(propertyName)) return cache[propertyName]; return cache[propertyName] = new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName); } } But, will this work well? For example if we had a whole load of different propertyNames, that would mean we would end up with a huge cache sitting there never being garbage collected or anything. I'm imagining if what is cached are larger values and if the application is a long-running one, this might end up as kind of a problem... or what do you think? How should a good cache be implemented? Is this one good enough for most purposes? Any examples of some nice cache implementations that are not too hard to understand or way too complex to implement?

    Read the article

  • What does CPU Time consist of? [closed]

    - by Sid
    What does CPU time exactly consist of? For instance, is the time taken to access a page from the RAM (at which point, the CPU is most likely idling) part of the CPU time? I'm not talking about fetching the page from the disk here, just fetching it from the RAM. Thanks

    Read the article

  • C# Dictionary Loop Enhancment

    - by Toto
    Hi, I have a dictionary with around 1 milions items. I am constantly looping throw the dictionnary : public void DoAllJobs() { foreach (KeyValuePair<uint, BusinessObject> p in _dictionnary) { if(p.Value.MustDoJob) p.Value.DoJob(); } } The execution is a bit long, around 600 ms, I would like to deacrese it. Here is the contraints : MustDoJob values mostly stay the same beetween two calls to DoAllJobs() 60-70% of the MustDoJob values == false From time to times MustDoJob change for 200 000 pairs. Some p.Value.DoJob() can not be computed at the same time (COM object call) Here, I do not need the key part of the _dictionnary objet but I really do need it somewhere else I wanted to do the following : Parallelizes but I am not sure is going to be effective due to 4. Sorts the dictionnary since 1. and 2. (and stop want I find the first MustDoJob == false) but I am wondering what 3. would result in I did not implement any of the previous ideas since it could be a lot of job and I would like to investigate others options before. So...any ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for avoiding locks on a heavily read table?

    - by Luiggi
    Hi, I have a big database (~4GB), with 2 large tables (~3M records) having ~180K SELECTs/hour, ~2k UPDATEs/hour and ~1k INSERTs+DELETEs/hour. What would be the best practice to guarantee no locks for the reading tasks while inserting/updating/deleting? I was thinking about using a NOLOCK hint, but there is so much discussed about this (is good, is bad, it depends) that I'm a bit lost. I must say I've tried this in a dev environment and I didn't find any problems, but I don't want to put it on production until I get some feedback... Thank you! Luiggi

    Read the article

  • Will an IO blocked process show 100% CPU utilization in 'top' output?

    - by Alex Stoddard
    I have an analysis that can be parallelized over a different number of processes. It is expected that things will be both IO and CPU intensive (very high throughput short-read DNA alignment if anyone is curious.) The system running this is a 48 core linux server. The question is how to determine the optimum number of processes such that total throughput is maximized. At some point the processes will presumably become IO bound such that adding more processes will be of no benefit and possibly detrimental. Can I tell from standard system monitoring tools when that point has been reached? Would the output of top (or maybe a different tool) enable me to distinguish between a IO bound and CPU bound process? I am suspicious that a process blocked on IO might still show 100% CPU utilization.

    Read the article

  • Using FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING will return noticeable speed gain?

    - by 9dan
    Recently noticed detail description of FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING flag in MSDN, and read several Google search results about unbuffered I/O in Windows. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx I wondering now, is it really important to consider unbuffered option in file I/O programming? Because many programs use plain old C stream I/O or C++ iostream, I didn't gave any attention to FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING flag before. Let's say we are developing photo explorer program like Picasa. If we implement unbuffered I/O, could thumbnail display speed show noticeable difference in ordinary users?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate Relationship Mapping/Speed up batch inserts

    - by manyxcxi
    I have 5 MySQL InnoDB tables: Test,InputInvoice,InputLine,OutputInvoice,OutputLine and each is mapped and functioning in Hibernate. I have played with using StatelessSession/Session, and JDBC batch size. I have removed any generator classes to let MySQL handle the id generation- but it is still performing quite slow. Each of those tables is represented in a java class, and mapped in hibernate accordingly. Currently when it comes time to write the data out, I loop through the objects and do a session.save(Object) or session.insert(Object) if I'm using StatelessSession. I also do a flush and clear (when using Session) when my line count reaches the max jdbc batch size (50). Would it be faster if I had these in a 'parent' class that held the objects and did a session.save(master) instead of each one? If I had them in a master/container class, how would I map that in hibernate to reflect the relationship? The container class wouldn't actually be a table of it's own, but a relationship all based on two indexes run_id (int) and line (int). Another direction would be: How do I get Hibernate to do a multi-row insert?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing landing pages

    - by Oleg Shaldybin
    In my current project (Rails 2.3) we have a collection of 1.2 million keywords, and each of them is associated with a landing page, which is effectively a search results page for a given keywords. Each of those pages is pretty complicated, so it can take a long time to generate (up to 2 seconds with a moderate load, even longer during traffic spikes, with current hardware). The problem is that 99.9% of visits to those pages are new visits (via search engines), so it doesn't help a lot to cache it on the first visit: it will still be slow for that visit, and the next visit could be in several weeks. I'd really like to make those pages faster, but I don't have too many ideas on how to do it. A couple of things that come to mind: build a cache for all keywords beforehand (with a very long TTL, a month or so). However, building and maintaing this cache can be a real pain, and the search results on the page might be outdated, or even no longer accessible; given the volatile nature of this data, don't try to cache anything at all, and just try to scale out to keep up with traffic. I'd really appreciate any feedback on this problem.

    Read the article

  • Maven + Tomcat acceleration

    - by Bar
    I am writing a web application with Maven in the Eclipse IDE, and use Tomcat servlet container. So, I run Maven like this: mvn clean compile. It is reasonable that after this oepration I must re-run Tomcat so it can reinitialize the context (Sysdeo Tomcat launcher helps a lot). The problem is Maven execution and subsequebt Tomcat re-running takes noticable amount of time (like 10+ seconds for Maven and 20+ sec. for Tomcat, because of logging, Hibernate mappings, etc.) every time I do it. Is there any automated and more faster solution for these two operatioins? As I see it, a way better solution can be moving re-compiled classes only to the target dir.

    Read the article

  • Where should I place a function that I want to run before the cached page is served (Drupal)

    - by kidbrax
    We have a intranet site that runs on Drupal. If an employee hits the site from outside our network they are required to login first. If they are already in our network, they can browse around freely. So we have a function that checks where they are coming from and redirects them to a login page if they are from outside. If we enable caching, they are not redirected because the cached page is rendered without running our function. The code currently exists inside of the theme_preprocess function. Where can I put it so that it always runs before the cached pages are served?

    Read the article

  • Sql Server 2000 Stored Procedure Prevents Parallelism or something?

    - by user187305
    I have a huge disgusting stored procedure that wasn't slow a couple months ago, but now is. I barely know what this thing does and I am in no way interested in rewriting it. I do know that if I take the body of the stored procedure and then declare/set the values of the parameters and run it in query analyzer that it runs more than 20x faster. From the internet, I've read that this is probably due to a bad cached query plan. So, I've tried running the sp with "WITH RECOMPILE" after the EXEC and I've also tried putting the "WITH RECOMPLE" inside the sp, but neither of those helped even a little bit. When I look at the execution plan of the sp vs the query, the biggest difference is that the sp has "Parallelism" operations all over the place and the query doesn't have any. Can this be the cause of the difference in speeds? Thank you, any ideas would be great... I'm stuck.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Insert Query Randomly Takes a Long Time

    - by ShimmerTroll
    I am using MySQL to manage session data for my PHP application. When testing the app, it is usually very quick and responsive. However, seemingly randomly the response will stall before finally completing after a few seconds. I have narrowed the problem down to the session write query which looks something like this: INSERT INTO Session VALUES('lvg0p9peb1vd55tue9nvh460a7', '1275704013', '') ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE sessAccess='1275704013',sessData=''; The slow query log has this information: Query_time: 0.524446 Lock_time: 0.000046 Rows_sent: 0 Rows_examined: 0 This happens about 1 out of every 10 times. The query usually only takes ~0.0044 sec. The table is InnoDB with about 60 rows. sessId is the primary key with a BTREE index. Since this is accessed on every page view, it is clearly not an acceptable execution time. Why is this happening? Update: Table schema is: sessId:varchar(32), sessAccess:int(10), sessData:text

    Read the article

  • Wpf. Chart optimization. More than million points

    - by Evgeny
    I have custom control - chart with size, for example, 300x300 pixels and more than one million points (maybe less) in it. And its clear that now he works very slowly. I am searching for algoritm which will show only few points with minimal visual difference. I have link to component which have functionallity exactly what i need (2 million points demo): http://www.mindscape.co.nz/demo/SilverlightElements/demopage.html#/ChartOverviewPage I will be grateful for any matherials, links or thoughts how to realize such functionallity.

    Read the article

  • Django: IE doesn't load locahost or loads very SLOWLY

    - by reedvoid
    I'm just starting to learn Django, building a project on my computer, running Windows 7 64-bit, Python 2.7, Django 1.3. Basically whatever I write, it loads in Chrome and Firefox instantly. But for IE (version 9), it just stalls there, and does nothing. I can load up "http://127.0.0.1:8000" on IE and leave the computer on for hours and it doesn't load. Sometimes, when I refresh a couple of times or restart IE it'll work. If I change something in the code, again, Chrome and Firefox reflects changes instantly, whereas IE doesn't - if it loads the page at all. What is going on? I'm losing my mind here....

    Read the article

  • In sync query calls, one query causing other query to run slower. Why?

    - by Irchi
    Sorry for the long question, but I think this is an interesting situation and I couldn't find any explanations for it: I was involved in optimization of an application that performed a large number of sequential SELECT and INSERT statements on a single dedicated SQL Server database. The process needs to INSERT a large number of records into a table, but for each of them there should be some value mappings, which performed using SELECT statements on another table in the same database. For a specific execution, it took 90 minutes to run. I used a profiler (JProfiler - the application is Java-based) to determine how much time does each part of the application take. It yields that 60% of the time was spent on INSERT method calls, and almost 20% on SELECT calls (the rest distributed in other parts). After some trials, I came to this situation: I commented out the INSERT query that took 60% of the time. I was expecting for the total run time to be around 35 minutes, as I have removed 60% of the 90 minutes. But the whole process took the same 90 minutes (doing only SELECTs and nothing else), but each SELECT took longer this time! Everything was running sync, there were no async calls. And there was only one single thread of execution. SELECT and INSERT queries are very simple, and don't have anything special, and they are on different tables, but on the same DB. I tested with both the DB on the application machine, and on a remote network machine. I can't think of any explanation for this, as the Profiler (Application profiler, not SQL Profiler) reported the changes in the method call times, and by removing INSERT statements SELECT statements took longer to run. Can anyone give me some kind of explanation of what could have happened? (there can't be cache / query optimization stuff, because the queries were run in sync, and in a single thread, and it was far from affecting the cache this much) I should note that the bottleneck of the speed was in SQL server, using most of the CPU time.

    Read the article

  • Nested loop traversing arrays

    - by alecco
    There are 2 very big series of elements, the second 100 times bigger than the first. For each element of the first series, there are 0 or more elements on the second series. This can be traversed and processed with 2 nested loops. But the unpredictability of the amount of matching elements for each member of the first array makes things very, very slow. The actual processing of the 2nd series of elements involves logical and (&) and a population count. I couldn't find good optimizations using C but I am considering doing inline asm, doing rep* mov* or similar for each element of the first series and then doing the batch processing of the matching bytes of the second series, perhaps in buffers of 1MB or something. But the code would be get quite messy. Does anybody know of a better way? C preferred but x86 ASM OK too. Many thanks! Sample/demo code with simplified problem, first series are "people" and second series are "events", for clarity's sake. (the original problem is actually 100m and 10,000m entries!) #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> #define PEOPLE 1000000 // 1m struct Person { uint8_t age; // Filtering condition uint8_t cnt; // Number of events for this person in E } P[PEOPLE]; // Each has 0 or more bytes with bit flags #define EVENTS 100000000 // 100m uint8_t P1[EVENTS]; // Property 1 flags uint8_t P2[EVENTS]; // Property 2 flags void init_arrays() { for (int i = 0; i < PEOPLE; i++) { // just some stuff P[i].age = i & 0x07; P[i].cnt = i % 220; // assert( sum < EVENTS ); } for (int i = 0; i < EVENTS; i++) { P1[i] = i % 7; // just some stuff P2[i] = i % 9; // just some other stuff } } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { uint64_t sum = 0, fcur = 0; int age_filter = 7; // just some init_arrays(); // Init P, P1, P2 for (int64_t p = 0; p < PEOPLE ; p++) if (P[p].age < age_filter) for (int64_t e = 0; e < P[p].cnt ; e++, fcur++) sum += __builtin_popcount( P1[fcur] & P2[fcur] ); else fcur += P[p].cnt; // skip this person's events printf("(dummy %ld %ld)\n", sum, fcur ); return 0; } gcc -O5 -march=native -std=c99 test.c -o test

    Read the article

  • can a program written in C be faster than one written in OCaml and translated to C?

    - by Ole Jak
    So I have some cool Image Processing algorithm. I have written it in OCaml. It performs well. I now I can compile it as C code with such command ocamlc -output-obj -o foo.c foo.ml (I have a situation where I am not alowed to use OCaml compiler to bild my programm for my arcetecture, I can use only specialy modified gcc. so I will compile that programm with sometyhing like gcc -L/usr/lib/ocaml foo.c -lcamlrun -lm -lncurses and Itll run on my archetecture.) I want to know in general case can a program written in C be faster than one written in OCaml and translated to C?

    Read the article

  • Slowing process creation under Java?

    - by oconnor0
    I have a single, large heap (up to 240GB, though in the 20-40GB range for most of this phase of execution) JVM [1] running under Linux [2] on a server with 24 cores. We have tens of thousands of objects that have to be processed by an external executable & then load the data created by those executables back into the JVM. Each executable produces about half a megabyte of data (on disk) that when read right in, after the process finishes, is, of course, larger. Our first implementation was to have each executable handle only a single object. This involved the spawning of twice as many executables as we had objects (since we called a shell script that called the executable). Our CPU utilization would start off high, but not necessarily 100%, and slowly worsen. As we began measuring to see what was happening we noticed that the process creation time [3] continually slows. While starting at sub-second times it would eventually grow to take a minute or more. The actual processing done by the executable usually takes less than 10 seconds. Next we changed the executable to take a list of objects to process in an attempt to reduce the number of processes created. With batch sizes of a few hundred (~1% of our current sample size), the process creation times start out around 2 seconds & grow to around 5-6 seconds. Basically, why is it taking so long to create these processes as execution continues? [1] Oracle JDK 1.6.0_22 [2] Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform 5.3, Linux kernel 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 #1 SMP [3] Creation of the ProcessBuilder object, redirecting the error stream, and starting it.

    Read the article

  • F# why my recursion is faster than Seq.exists?

    - by user38397
    I am pretty new to F#. I'm trying to understand how I can get a fast code in F#. For this, I tried to write two methods (IsPrime1 and IsPrime2) for benchmarking. My code is: // Learn more about F# at http://fsharp.net open System open System.Diagnostics #light let isDivisible n d = n % d = 0 let IsPrime1 n = Array.init (n-2) ((+) 2) |> Array.exists (isDivisible n) |> not let rec hasDivisor n d = match d with | x when x < n -> (n % x = 0) || (hasDivisor n (d+1)) | _ -> false let IsPrime2 n = hasDivisor n 2 |> not let SumOfPrimes max = [|2..max|] |> Array.filter IsPrime1 |> Array.sum let maxVal = 20000 let s = new Stopwatch() s.Start() let valOfSum = SumOfPrimes maxVal s.Stop() Console.WriteLine valOfSum Console.WriteLine("IsPrime1: {0}", s.ElapsedMilliseconds) ////////////////////////////////// s.Reset() s.Start() let SumOfPrimes2 max = [|2..max|] |> Array.filter IsPrime2 |> Array.sum let valOfSum2 = SumOfPrimes2 maxVal s.Stop() Console.WriteLine valOfSum2 Console.WriteLine("IsPrime2: {0}", s.ElapsedMilliseconds) Console.ReadKey() IsPrime1 takes 760 ms while IsPrime2 takes 260ms for the same result. What's going on here and how I can make my code even faster?

    Read the article

  • Update table with index is too slow

    - by pauloya
    Hi, I was watching the Profiler on a live system of our application and I saw that there was an update instruction that we run periodically (every second) that was quite slow. It took around 400ms every time. The query includes this update (which is the slow part) UPDATE BufferTable SET LrbCount = LrbCount + 1, LrbUpdated = getdate() WHERE LrbId = @LrbId This is the table CREATE TABLE BufferTable( LrbId [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, ... LrbInserted [datetime] NOT NULL, LrbProcessed [bit] NOT NULL, LrbUpdated [datetime] NOT NULL, LrbCount [tinyint] NOT NULL, ) The table has 2 indexes (non unique and non clustered) with the fields by this order: * Index1 - (LrbProcessed, LrbCount) * Index2 - (LrbInserted, LrbCount, LrbProcessed) When I looked at this I thought that the problem would come from Index1 since LrbCount is changing a lot and it changes the order of the data in the index. But after desactivating index1 I saw the query was taking the same time as initially. Then I rebuilt index1 and desactivated index2, this time the query was very fast. It seems to me that Index2 should be faster to update, the order of the data shouldn't change since the LrbInserted time is not changed. Can someone explain why index2 is much heavier to update then index1? Thank you!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >