Search Results

Search found 20275 results on 811 pages for 'general performance'.

Page 138/811 | < Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >

  • Array performance question

    - by Konrad
    I am very familiar with STL vector (and other container) performance guarantees, however I can't seem to find anything concrete about plain arrays. Are pointer arithmetic and [] methods constant or linear time?

    Read the article

  • LINQ entity query performance

    - by Abdel Olakara
    Hi all, I have a silly question. I would like to know if there is performance deference in these two quries: var cObject = from cust in entities.Customer where cust.id == cid select cust; and var cObject = entities.Customer.First( c=> c.id == cid); My query return only one record as I am querying with the primary key. But do they make any difference?

    Read the article

  • Choking experienced while using the TCP/IP Adapter for BizTalk Server 2006

    - by Burhan
    I am using the TCP/IP Adapter for BizTalk Server 2006 which was obtained from codeplex: http://www.codeplex.com/BTSTCPIP Once the application was deployed in production, we started to experience choking in the performance of the application. The more the requests, the more the performance degradation. Sometimes, it happens that the receive ports become non-responsive and we have to forcefully restart the host instances to temporarily let the services respond again but we experience the same problems again and again. I would like to ask if any of you have used the same adapter and have you ever experienced the similar issues? If yes, how can we overcome theses issues. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How a JIT compiler helps performance of applications?

    - by igorgue
    I just read that Android has a 450% performance improvement because it added a JIT compiler, I know what JIT is, but I don't really understand why is it faster than normal compiled code? or what's the difference with the older approach from the Android platform (the Java like run compiled bytecode). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • optimizing any OS for maximum informix client/server performance

    - by Frank Developer
    Is there any Informix documentation for optimizing any operating system where an ifx engine is running? For example, in Linux, strip-down to a bare minimum all unnecessary binaries, daemons, utilities, tune kernel parameters, optimize raw and cooked devices (hdparm), place swap space on beginning tracks of a disk, etc. Someday, maybe, Informix can create its own proprietary and dedicated PICK-like O/S to provide the most optimized environment for a standalone ifx server? The general idea is for the OS where ifx sits on have the smallest footprint and lowest overhead impact.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Documents stored in SQL table

    - by vradenburg
    I have a legacy FoxPro application which stores documents in an SQL table in a field with the image datatype. FoxPro accesses the image datatype as a "General" field which can be used to store various files. I have a FoxPro control which interfaces with the General field for modifying/viewing the document that was stored. I need to migrate this control to .NET and make it easy for users to view/modify documents of various types. Does anyone have any suggestions on some ways to go about this or know of things that I'll need to consider for the migration to .NET? I'm pretty sure that I'll need to migrate the field to either a varbinary(max) or FileStream data type.

    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

  • 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

  • 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 | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >