Search Results

Search found 13403 results on 537 pages for 'epm performance tuning'.

Page 111/537 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

  • How much does Javascript garbage collection affect performance?

    - by Long Ouyang
    I'm writing a bunch of scripts that present images serially (e.g. 1 per second) and require the user to make either a keyboard or mouse response. I'm using closures to handle the timing of image presentation and user input. This causes garbage collection to happen pretty frequently and I'm wondering if that will affect the performance (viz. timing of image presentation).

    Read the article

  • Seam app with JBoss 'minimal' Config?

    - by Shadowman
    I'd like to improve the performance of my Seam apps and JBoss appserver, particularly by removing things that aren't necessary in the standard configuration. Ideally, I'd like to be able to run it using the "minimal" profile. Can anyone give me any guidance as to what is needed to run a Seam app using "minimal"? Here are the kind of things my app requires: JPA, using Hibernate with a PostgreSQL backend EJB3 JSF (RichFaces/Facelets) E-mail, eventually, although not required at this particular moment I'll be developing my app using JBoss Tools on Eclipse, so I would also need anything that is required by the tools for development and deployment. I've found that the default configuration just has too many additional components and features installed by default, and that greatly affects performance when I'm trying to develop. Any help you can give would be great! Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • When to use Vanilla Javascript vs. jQuery?

    - by jondavidjohn
    I have noticed while monitoring/attempting to answer common jQuery questions, that there are certain practices using javascript, instead of jQuery, that actually enable you to write less and do ... well the same amount. And may also yield performance benefits. A specific example $(this) vs this Inside a click event referencing the clicked objects id jQuery $(this).attr("id"); Javascript this.id; Are there any other common practices like this? Where certain Javascript operations could be accomplished easier, without bringing jQuery into the mix. Or is this a rare case? (of a jQuery "shortcut" actually requiring more code) EDIT : While I appreciate the answers regarding jQuery vs. plain javascript performance, I am actually looking for much more quantitative answers. While using jQuery, instances where one would actually be better off (readability/compactness) to use plain javascript instead of using $(). In addition to the example I gave in my original question.

    Read the article

  • How can I optimize MVC and IIS pipeline to obtain higher speed?

    - by Andy
    Hi, I am doing performance tweaking of a simple app that uses MVC on IIS 7.5. I have a StopWatch starting up in Application_BeginRequest and I take a snapshot at Controller.OnActionExecuting. So I measure the time spend in the entire IIS pipeline: from request receipt to the moment execution finally gets to my controller. I obtain 700 microseconds on my 3GHz quad-core (project compiled Release x64), and I wonder where the bottleneck is, especially hearing some people say that one can get up to 8000 page loads per second with MVC. How can I optimize MVC and IIS pipeline to obtain higher speed?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server architecture guidance

    - by Liam
    Hi, We are designing a new version of our existing product on a new schema. Its an internal web application with possibly 100 concurrent users (max)This will run on a SQL Server 2008 database. On of the discussion items recently is whether we should have a single database of split the database for performance reasons across 2 separate databases. The database could grow anywhere from 50-100GB over 5 years. We are Developers and not DBAs so it would be nice to get some general guidance. [I know the answer is not simple as it depends on the schema, archiving policy, amount of data etc. ] Option 1 Single Main Database [This is my preferred option]. The plan would be to have all the tables in a single database and possibly to use file groups and partitioning to separate the data if required across multiple disks. [Use schema if appropriate]. This should deal with the performance concerns One of the comments wrt this was that the a single server instance would still be processing this data so there would still be a processing bottle neck. For reporting we could have a separate reporting DB but this is still being discussed. Option 2 Split the database into 2 separate databases DB1 - Customers, Accounts, Customer resources etc DB2 - This would contain the bulk of the data [i.e. Vehicle tracking data, financial transaction tables etc]. These tables would typically contain a lot of data. [It could reside on a separate server if required] This plan would involve keeping the main data in a smaller database [DB1] and retaining the [mainly] read only transaction type data in a separate DB [DB2]. The UI would mainly read from DB1 and thus be more responsive. [I'm aware that this option makes it harder for Referential Integrity to be enforced.] Points for consideration As we are at the design stage we can at least make proper use of indexes to deal performance issues so thats why option 1 to me is attractive and its more of a standard approach. For both options we are considering implementing an archiving database. Apologies for the long Question. In summary the question is 1 DB or 2? Thanks in advance, Liam

    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

  • Generics vs Object performance

    - by Risho
    I'm doing practice problems from MCTS Exam 70-536 Microsft .Net Framework Application Dev Foundation, and one of the problems is to create two classes, one generic, one object type that both perform the same thing; in which a loop uses the class and iterated over thousand times. And using the timer, time the performance of both. There was another post at C# generics question that seeks the same questoion but nonone replied. Basically if in my code I run the generic class first it takes loger to process. If I run the object class first than the object class takes longer to process. The whole idea was to prove that generics perform faster. I used the original users code to save me some time. I didn't particularly see anything wrong with the code and was puzzled by the outcome. Can some one explain why the unusual results? Thanks, Risho Here is the code: class Program { class Object_Sample { public Object_Sample() { Console.WriteLine("Object_Sample Class"); } public long getTicks() { return DateTime.Now.Ticks; } public void display(Object a) { Console.WriteLine("{0}", a); } } class Generics_Samle<T> { public Generics_Samle() { Console.WriteLine("Generics_Sample Class"); } public long getTicks() { return DateTime.Now.Ticks; } public void display(T a) { Console.WriteLine("{0}", a); } } static void Main(string[] args) { long ticks_initial, ticks_final, diff_generics, diff_object; Object_Sample OS = new Object_Sample(); Generics_Samle<int> GS = new Generics_Samle<int>(); //Generic Sample ticks_initial = 0; ticks_final = 0; ticks_initial = GS.getTicks(); for (int i = 0; i < 50000; i++) { GS.display(i); } ticks_final = GS.getTicks(); diff_generics = ticks_final - ticks_initial; //Object Sample ticks_initial = 0; ticks_final = 0; ticks_initial = OS.getTicks(); for (int j = 0; j < 50000; j++) { OS.display(j); } ticks_final = OS.getTicks(); diff_object = ticks_final - ticks_initial; Console.WriteLine("\nPerformance of Generics {0}", diff_generics); Console.WriteLine("Performance of Object {0}", diff_object); Console.ReadKey(); } }

    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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >