Search Results

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

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 174/537 | < Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >

  • Long primitive or AtomicLong for a counter?

    - by Rich
    Hi I have a need for a counter of type long with the following requirements/facts: Incrementing the counter should take as little time as possible. The counter will only be written to by one thread. Reading from the counter will be done in another thread. The counter will be incremented regularly (as much as a few thousand times per second), but will only be read once every five seconds. Precise accuracy isn't essential, only a rough idea of the size of the counter is good enough. The counter is never cleared, decremented. Based upon these requirements, how would you choose to implement your counter? As a simple long, as a volatile long or using an AtomicLong? Why? At the moment I have a volatile long but was wondering whether another approach would be better. I am also incrementing my long by doing ++counter as opposed to counter++. Is this really any more efficient (as I have been led to believe elsewhere) because there is no assignment being done? Thanks in advance Rich

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET problem - Firebug shows odd behaviour

    - by Brandi
    I have an ASP.NET application that does a large database read. It loads up a gridview inside an update panel. In VS2008, just running on my local machine, it runs fantastically. In production (identical code, just published and put on one of our network servers), it runs slow as dirt. Debug is set to false, so this is not the cause of the slow down. I'm not an experienced web developer, so besides that, feel free to suggest the obvious. I have been using Firebug to determine what's going on, and here is what that has turned up: On production, there are around 500 requests. The timeline bar is very short. The size column varies from run to run, but is always the same for the duration of the run. Locally, there are about 30 requests. The timeline bar takes up the entire space. Can anyone shed some light on why this is happening and what I can do to fix it? Also, I can't find much of anything on the web about this, so any references are helpful too.

    Read the article

  • SQL Profiles showing high activity

    - by Wong Chi
    I am running my application locally -- ie. No external traffic and very low number of queries, fully under my control. I see tons of 'Audit Login' and 'Audit Logout' events. What are these and where are they actually stored (ie. Where is this audit log)? Are these a hint of a problem with connections, because I have only a simple connection string within my app and thought that connections would remain active throughout the operation of my app (ie. a single login at launch, and then a single logout when terminating).

    Read the article

  • effective counter for unique number of visits in PHP & MySQL

    - by Adnan
    Hello, I am creating a counter for unique number of visits on a post, so what I have until now is a table for storing data like this; cvp_post_id | cvp_ip | cvp_user_id In cases a registered user visits a post, for the first time a record is inserted with cpv_post_id and cvp_user_id, so for his next visit I query the table and if the record is available I do not count him as a new visitor. In cases of an anonymous user the same happens but now the cvp_ip and cpv_post_id are used. My concerns is that I do a query every time anyone visits a post for checking if there has been a visit, what would be a more effective way for doing this?

    Read the article

  • High CPU - What to do.

    - by Udi Kantzuker
    I have a high CPU problem with MYSQL using "top" ( linux ) shows cpu peaks of 90%. I was trying to find the source of the problem, turned on general log and slow query log, The slow query log did not find anything. The Db contains a few small tables and one large table that contains almost 100k rows, Database Engine is MyIsam. strange thing i have noticed that on the large table, select, insert are very fast but update takes 0.2 - 0.5 secs. already used optimize and repair and no improvement. the table is being updated frequently, could this be the source of the high CPU% ? What can i do to improve this?

    Read the article

  • resort on a std::vector vs std::insert

    - by Abruzzo Forte e Gentile
    I have a sorted std::vector of relative small size ( from 5 to 20 elements ). I used std::vector since the data is continuous so I have speed because of cache. On a specific point I need to remove an element from this vector. I have now a doubt: which is the fastest way to remove this value between the 2 options below? setting that element to 0 and call sort to reorder: this has complexity but elements are on the same cache line. call erase that will copy ( or memcpy who knows?? ) all elements after it of 1 place ( I need to investigate the behind scense of erase ). Do you know which one is faster? I think that the same approach could be thought about inserting a new element without hitting the max capacity of the vector. Regards AFG

    Read the article

  • Cache bandwidth per tick for modern CPUs

    - by osgx
    Hello What is a speed of cache accessing for modern CPUs? How many bytes can be read or written from memory every processor clock tick by Intel P4, Core2, Corei7, AMD? Please, answer with both theoretical (width of ld/sd unit with its throughput in uOPs/tick) and practical numbers (even memcpy speed tests, or STREAM benchmark), if any. PS it is question, related to maximal rate of load/store instructions in assembler. There can be theoretical rate of loading (all Instructions Per Tick are widest loads), but processor can give only part of such, a practical limit of loading.

    Read the article

  • Best memory settings for eclipse 4.2 (STS 3.1) on Windows 7 64 bit?

    - by jorrebor
    I apoligize in advance if this question is indeed too subjective as SO warns me. My workstation has 8 gb of ram and runs windows 7 64 bit. I use the Spring tool Suite (3.1) but as soon as i am starting to open and modify the spring config (.xml) files, STS becomes incredibly slow. I already tried switching off "build automatically" and to increase memory settings but no luck. How should i change my .ini ? this is what i have set now: -vm C:/Program Files/Java/jdk1.7.0_07/bin/javaw.exe -startup plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher_1.3.0.v20120522-1813.jar --launcher.library plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.win32.win32.x86_64_1.1.200.v20120522-1813 -product org.springsource.sts.ide --launcher.defaultAction openFile --launcher.XXMaxPermSize 4096M -vmargs -Dosgi.requiredJavaVersion=1.5 -Xms512m -Xmx2048m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m My collageu running the same project in IntelliJ, has no problems. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Speed up :visible:input selector avoiding filter

    - by macca1
    I have a jQuery selector that is running way too slow on my unfortunately large page: $("#section").find(":visible:input").filter(":first").focus(); Is there a quicker way to select the first visible input without having to find ALL the visible inputs and then filtering THAT selection for the first? I want something like :visible:input:first but that doesn't seem to work.

    Read the article

  • finding long repeated substrings in a massive string

    - by Will
    I naively imagined that I could build a suffix trie where I keep a visit-count for each node, and then the deepest nodes with counts greater than one are the result set I'm looking for. I have a really really long string (hundreds of megabytes). I have about 1 GB of RAM. This is why building a suffix trie with counting data is too inefficient space-wise to work for me. To quote Wikipedia's Suffix tree: storing a string's suffix tree typically requires significantly more space than storing the string itself. The large amount of information in each edge and node makes the suffix tree very expensive, consuming about ten to twenty times the memory size of the source text in good implementations. The suffix array reduces this requirement to a factor of four, and researchers have continued to find smaller indexing structures. And that was wikipedia's comments on the tree, not trie. How can I find long repeated sequences in such a large amount of data, and in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. less than an hour on a modern desktop machine)? (Some wikipedia links to avoid people posting them as the 'answer': Algorithms on strings and especially Longest repeated substring problem ;-) )

    Read the article

  • oracle index for string column - does format of data affects quality of index?

    - by Jayan
    We have following type of "Unique ID" column for many tables in the database (Oracle). It is a string with following format <randomnumber>-<ascendingnumber>-<machinename> So we have some thing like this U1234-12345-NBBJD U1234-12346-NBBJD U1234-12347-NBBJD U1234-12348-NBBJD U1234-12349-NBBJD The UID value is unique, we have unique index on them. Does the following format is more efficient than above for index scans? NBBJD-U1234-12345 NBBJD-U1234-12346 NBBJD-U1234-12347 NBBJD-U1234-12348 NBBJD-U1234-12349

    Read the article

  • C++ Program performs better when piped

    - by ET1 Nerd
    I haven't done any programming in a decade. I wanted to get back into it, so I made this little pointless program as practice. The easiest way to describe what it does is with output of my --help codeblock: ./prng_bench --help ./prng_bench: usage: ./prng_bench $N $B [$T] This program will generate an N digit base(B) random number until all N digits are the same. Once a repeating N digit base(B) number is found, the following statistics are displayed: -Decimal value of all N digits. -Time & number of tries taken to randomly find. Optionally, this process is repeated T times. When running multiple repititions, averages for all N digit base(B) numbers are displayed at the end, as well as total time and total tries. My "problem" is that when the problem is "easy", say a 3 digit base 10 number, and I have it do a large number of passes the "total time" is less when piped to grep. ie: command ; command |grep took : ./prng_bench 3 10 999999 ; ./prng_bench 3 10 999999|grep took .... Pass# 999999: All 3 base(10) digits = 3 base(10). Time: 0.00005 secs. Tries: 23 It took 191.86701 secs & 99947208 tries to find 999999 repeating 3 digit base(10) numbers. An average of 0.00019 secs & 99 tries was needed to find each one. It took 159.32355 secs & 99947208 tries to find 999999 repeating 3 digit base(10) numbers. If I run the same command many times w/o grep time is always VERY close. I'm using srand(1234) for now, to test. The code between my calls to clock_gettime() for start and stop do not involve any stream manipulation, which would obviously affect time. I realize this is an exercise in futility, but I'd like to know why it behaves this way. Below is heart of the program. Here's a link to the full source on DB if anybody wants to compile and test. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6olqnnjf3unkm2m/prng_bench.cpp clock_gettime() requires -lrt. for (int pass_num=1; pass_num<=passes; pass_num++) { //Executes $passes # of times. clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &temp_time); //get time start_time = timetodouble(temp_time); //convert time to double, store as start_time for(i=1, tries=0; i!=0; tries++) { //loops until 'comparison for' fully completes. counts reps as 'tries'. <------------ for (i=0; i<Ndigits; i++) //Move forward through array. | results[i]=(rand()%base); //assign random num of base to element (digit). | /*for (i=0; i<Ndigits; i++) //---Debug Lines--------------- | std::cout<<" "<<results[i]; //---a LOT of output.---------- | std::cout << "\n"; //---Comment/decoment to disable/enable.*/ // | for (i=Ndigits-1; i>0 && results[i]==results[0]; i--); //Move through array, != element breaks & i!=0, new digits drawn. -| } //If all are equal i will be 0, nested for condition satisfied. -| clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &temp_time); //get time draw_time = (timetodouble(temp_time) - start_time); //convert time to dbl, subtract start_time, set draw_time to diff. total_time += draw_time; //add time for this pass to total. total_tries += tries; //add tries for this pass to total. /*Formated output for each pass: Pass# ---: All -- base(--) digits = -- base(10) Time: ----.---- secs. Tries: ----- (LINE) */ std::cout<<"Pass# "<<std::setw(width_pass)<<pass_num<<": All "<<Ndigits<<" base("<<base<<") digits = " <<std::setw(width_base)<<results[0]<<" base(10). Time: "<<std::setw(width_time)<<draw_time <<" secs. Tries: "<<tries<<"\n"; } if(passes==1) return 0; //No need for totals and averages of 1 pass. /* It took ----.---- secs & ------ tries to find --- repeating -- digit base(--) numbers. (LINE) An average of ---.---- secs & ---- tries was needed to find each one. (LINE)(LINE) */ std::cout<<"It took "<<total_time<<" secs & "<<total_tries<<" tries to find " <<passes<<" repeating "<<Ndigits<<" digit base("<<base<<") numbers.\n" <<"An average of "<<total_time/passes<<" secs & "<<total_tries/passes <<" tries was needed to find each one. \n\n"; return 0;

    Read the article

  • C: using a lot of structs can make a program slow?

    - by nunos
    I am coding a breakout clone. I had one version in which I only had one level deep of structures. This version runs at 70 fps. For more clarity in the code I decided the code should have more abstractions and created more structs. Most of the times I have two two three level deep of structures. This version runs at 30 fps. Since there are some other differences besides the structures, I ask you: Does using a lot of structs in C can slow down the code significantly? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Caching result of SELECT statement for reuse in multiple queries

    - by Andrew
    I have a reasonably complex query to extract the Id field of the results I am interested in based on parameters entered by the user. After extracting the relevant Ids I am using the resulting set of Ids several times, in separate queries, to extract the actual output record sets I want (by joining to other tables, using aggregate functions, etc). I would like to avoid running the initial query separately for every set of results I want to return. I imagine my situation is a common pattern so I am interested in what the best approach is. The database is in MS SQL Server and I am using .NET 3.5.

    Read the article

  • Why PHP (script) serves more requests than CGI (compiled)?

    - by Lucas Batistussi
    I developed the following CGI script and run on Apache 2 (http://localhost/test.chtml). I did same script in PHP (http://localhost/verifica.php). Later I performed Apache benchmark using Apache Benchmark tool. The results are showed in images. include #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { printf("%s%c%c\n", "Content-Type:text/html;charset=iso-8859-1",13,10); printf("<TITLE>Multiplication results</TITLE>\n"); printf("<H3>Multiplication results</H3>\n"); return 0; } Someone can explain me why PHP serves more requests than CGI script?

    Read the article

  • What is the most efficient method to find x contiguous values of y in an array?

    - by Alec
    Running my app through callgrind revealed that this line dwarfed everything else by a factor of about 10,000. I'm probably going to redesign around it, but it got me wondering; Is there a better way to do it? Here's what I'm doing at the moment: int i = 1; while ( ( (*(buffer++) == 0xffffffff && ++i) || (i = 1) ) && i < desiredLength + 1 && buffer < bufferEnd ); It's looking for the offset of the first chunk of desiredLength 0xffffffff values in a 32 bit unsigned int array. It's significantly faster than any implementations I could come up with involving an inner loop. But it's still too damn slow.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 - Is it slow for anyone else?

    - by AngryHacker
    I've read a lot of stuff about VS2010 being much more performant than VS2008. When I've finally installed it, I found that it, in fact, is much slower (save for the Add References dialog). For instance, Silverlight projects take twice as long to load, the startup of the IDE itself is much slower, etc... Am I missing something here or is it like this for everyone?

    Read the article

  • Why is Dictionary.First() so slow?

    - by Rotsor
    Not a real question because I already found out the answer, but still interesting thing. I always thought that hash table is the fastest associative container if you hash properly. However, the following code is terribly slow. It executes only about 1 million iterations and takes more than 2 minutes of time on a Core 2 CPU. The code does the following: it maintains the collection todo of items it needs to process. At each iteration it takes an item from this collection (doesn't matter which item), deletes it, processes it if it wasn't processed (possibly adding more items to process), and repeats this until there are no items to process. The culprit seems to be the Dictionary.Keys.First() operation. The question is why is it slow? Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch(); watch.Start(); HashSet<int> processed = new HashSet<int>(); Dictionary<int, int> todo = new Dictionary<int, int>(); todo.Add(1, 1); int iterations = 0; int limit = 500000; while (todo.Count > 0) { iterations++; var key = todo.Keys.First(); var value = todo[key]; todo.Remove(key); if (!processed.Contains(key)) { processed.Add(key); // process item here if (key < limit) { todo[key + 13] = value + 1; todo[key + 7] = value + 1; } // doesn't matter much how } } Console.WriteLine("Iterations: {0}; Time: {1}.", iterations, watch.Elapsed); This results in: Iterations: 923007; Time: 00:02:09.8414388. Simply changing Dictionary to SortedDictionary yields: Iterations: 499976; Time: 00:00:00.4451514. 300 times faster while having only 2 times less iterations. The same happens in java. Used HashMap instead of Dictionary and keySet().iterator().next() instead of Keys.First().

    Read the article

  • 2k rows update is very slow in MySQL

    - by sergeik
    Hi all, I have 2 tables: 1. news (450k rows) 2. news_tags (3m rows) There are some triggers on news table update which updating listings. This SQL executes too long... UPDATE news SET news_category = some_number WHERE news_id IN (SELECT news_id FROM news_tags WHERE tag_id = some_number); #about 3k rows How can I make it faster? Thanks in advance, S.

    Read the article

  • Are doubles faster than floats in c#?

    - by Trap
    I'm writing an application which reads large arrays of floats and performs some simple operations with them. I'm using floats because I thought it'd be faster than doubles, but after doing some research I've found that there's some confusion about this topic. Can anyone elaborate on this? Thanks.

    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 | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >