Search Results

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

Page 36/1421 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • Display another field in the referenced table for multiple columns with performance issues in mind

    - by israkir
    I have a table of edge like this: ------------------------------- | id | arg1 | relation | arg2 | ------------------------------- | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | ------------------------------- | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | ------------------------------- where arg1, relation and arg2 reference to the ids of objects in another object table: -------------------- | id | object_name | -------------------- | 1 | book | -------------------- | 2 | pen | -------------------- | 3 | on | -------------------- | 4 | table | -------------------- | 5 | bag | -------------------- | 6 | in | -------------------- What I want to do is that, considering performance issues (a very big table more than 50 million of entries) display the object_name for each edge entry rather than id such as: --------------------------- | arg1 | relation | arg2 | --------------------------- | book | on | table | --------------------------- | pen | in | bag | --------------------------- What is the best select query to do this? Also, I am open to suggestions for optimizing the query - adding more index on the tables etc... EDIT: Based on the comments below: 1) @Craig Ringer: PostgreSQL version: 8.4.13 and only index is id for both tables. 2) @andrefsp: edge is almost x2 times bigger than object.

    Read the article

  • MongoDB: embedding performance question

    - by Alex
    I just started learning MongoDB, and I really like the idea of embedding collections instead of referencing them. MongoDB's documentation recommends to use embedding if performance is needed. I just thought about a simple forum model. Let's say, every board category has several boards, every board has several topics, and every topic has several messages. All of these collections are embedded. After some time the size of the board category will be huge. Way more than the 2MB limit. Does this mean that there's a flaw in this design?

    Read the article

  • django url tag performance

    - by zxygentoo
    I was trying to integrate django-voting into my project following the RedditStyleVoting instruction. In my urls.py, i did something like this: url(r'^sections/(?P<object_id>\d+)/(?P<direction>up|down|clear)vote/?$', vote_on_object, dict( model=Section, template_object_name='section', template_name='script/section_confirm_vote.html', allow_xmlhttprequest=True ), name="section_vote", then, in my template: {% vote_by_user user on section as vote %} {% score_for_object section as score %} {% vote_by_user user on section as vote %} {% score_for_object section as score %} {{ score.score|default:0 }} It takes over 1.3s to load the page, but by hard coding it like this: {% vote_by_user user on section as vote %} {% score_for_object section as score %} {{ score.score|default:0 }} I got 50ms. Just avoid the url tag resolving stuff I got a 20+ times performance improvement. Is there something I did wrong? If not, then what's the best practice here, should we do things the right way or the fast way?

    Read the article

  • Tool to monitor IE performance running JavaScript

    - by StefanE
    Hi, Company I work for are one of the largest betting companies in Europe and the website has thousands of lines of JavaScript on all our pages. Lately Internet Explorer versions earlier than version 9 are running painfully slow and I want to be able to monitor what parts of a page load (including scripts) that are slow. I know that IE are slower in general and has DOM API issues etc. What I want to accomplish is a way to quickly identify slow parts and see if we can replace the code with IE specific code that will render with higher performance. Cheers, Stefan

    Read the article

  • .NET Performance: Deep Recursion vs Queue

    - by JeffN825
    I'm writing a component that needs to walk large object graphs, sometimes 20-30 levels deep. What is the most performant way of walking the graph? A. Enqueueing "steps" so as to avoid deep recursion or B. A DFS (depth first search) which may step many levels deep and have a "deep" stack trace at times. I guess the question I'm asking is: Is there a performance hit in .NET for doing a DFS that causes a "deep" stack trace? If so, what is the hit? And would I better better off with some BFS by means of queueing up steps that would have been handled recursively in a DFS? Sorry if I'm being unclear. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C# Dynamic From Components (Performance problem)

    - by Svisstack
    Hello, I have a problem with performance of my code under Windows Forms. Have a form, her layout is depending on constructor data, because he layout must be OnLoad or in Constructor generated. I generation is simple, base FlowLayoutPanel have other FlowLayoutPanels, for each have a Label and TextBox with DataBinding. Problem is this is VERY SLOW, up to 20 seconds, i drawing less than 100 controls, from Performace Session i know a problem is on 70% procesing functions: System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlCollection.Add(class System.Windows.Forms.Control) System.Windows.Forms.ControlBindingsCollection.Add(class System.Windows.Forms.Binding) How i can do with this? Anyone help me in this problem? How solve the dynamic form layout problem?

    Read the article

  • How to track IIS server performance

    - by Chris Brandsma
    I have a reoccurring issue where a customer calls up and complains that the web site is too slow. Specifically, if they are inactive for a short period of time, then go back to the site, there will be a minute-two minute delay before the user sees a response. (the standard browser is Firefox in this case) I have Perfmon up and running, the cpu utilization is usually below 20% (single proc...don't ask). The database is humming along. And I'm pulling my hair out. So, what metrics/tools do you find useful when evaluating IIS performance?

    Read the article

  • Function calls in virtual machine killing performance

    - by GenTiradentes
    I wrote a virtual machine in C, which has a call table populated by pointers to functions that provide the functionality of the VM's opcodes. When the virtual machine is run, it first interprets a program, creating an array of indexes corresponding to the appropriate function in the call table for the opcode provided. It then loops through the array, calling each function until it reaches the end. Each instruction is extremely small, typically one line. Perfect for inlining. The problem is that the compiler doesn't know when any of the virtual machine's instructions are going to be called, as it's decided at runtime, so it can't inline them. The overhead of function calls and argument passing is killing the performance of my VM. Any ideas on how to get around this?

    Read the article

  • How can I measure file access performance (and volume) of a (Java) application

    - by stmoebius
    Given an application, how can I measure the amount of data read and written by that application? the time spent reading/writing to disk? The specific application is Java-based (JBoss), and multi-threaded, and running as a service on Windows 7/2008 x64. The overall goal I have is determining whether and why file access is a bottleneck in my application. Therefore, running the application in a defined and repeatable scenario is a given. File access may be local as well as on network shares. Windows performance monitor appears to be too hard to use (unless someone can point me to a helpful explanation). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • AS3: Performance question calling an event function with null param

    - by adehaas
    Lately I needed to call a listener function without an actual listener like so: foo(null); private function foo(event:Event):void { //do something } So I was wondering if there is a significant difference regarding performance between this and using the following, in which I can prevent the null in calling the function without the listener, but am still able to call it with a listener as well: foo(); private function foo(event:Event = null):void { } I am not sure wether it is just a question of style, or actually bad practice and I should write two similar functions, one with and one without the event param (which seems cumbersome to me). Looking forward to your opinions, thx.

    Read the article

  • Java generic Interface performance

    - by halfwarp
    Simple question, but tricky answer I guess. Does using Generic Interfaces hurts performance? Example: public interface Stuff<T> { void hello(T var); } vs public interface Stuff { void hello(Integer var); <---- Integer used just as an example } My first thought is that it doesn't. Generics are just part of the language and the compiler will optimize it as though there were no generics (at least in this particular case of generic interfaces). Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • SSRS Performance Mystery

    - by user101654
    I have a stored procedure that returns about 50000 records in 10sec using at most 2 cores in SSMS. The SSRS report using the stored procedure was taking 20min and would max out the processor on an 8 core server for the entire time. The report was relatively simple (i.e. no graphs, calculations). The report did not appear to be the issue as I wrote the 50K rows to a temp table and the report could display the data in a few seconds. I tried many different ideas for testing altering the stored procedure each time, but keeping the original code in a separate window to revert back to. After one Alter of the stored procedure, going back to the original code, the report and server utilization started running fast, comparable to the performance of the stored procedure alone. Everything is fine for now, but I am would like to get to the bottom of what caused this in case it happens again. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • c# performance- create font

    - by user85917
    I have performance issues in this code segment which I think is caused by the "new Font". Will it be faster if fonts are static/global ? if (row.StartsWith(TILD_BEGIN)) { rtbTrace.SelectionColor = Color.Maroon; rtbTrace.SelectionFont = new Font(myFont, (float)8.25, FontStyle.Regular); if (row.StartsWith(BEGIN) ) rtbTrace.AppendText(Environment.NewLine + row + Environment.NewLine); else rtbTrace.AppendText(Environment.NewLine + row.Substring(1) + Environment.NewLine); continue; } if (row.StartsWith(EXCL_BEGIN)) { -- similar block } if (row.StartsWith(DLR_BEGIN)) { -- similar block } . . .

    Read the article

  • C# chart control Performance with large amounts of data

    - by user3642115
    I am using a chart control with a range bar graph to basically make a gantt chart for lots of people and lots of projects, say about 1000 total series. The issue that I am running in to is that once I have all my data added to the chart, which takes some time but that is to be expected, and I go to scroll down on my graph it freezes the whole application and takes a while before it unfreezes and scrolls down. Is there any way to improve the performance of this? I tried adding the graph to a panel and growing the graph size dynamically and then scrolling down from the panel but that cause a whole plethora of other issues. Any tips for speeding this up? I don't think it is my code as it has already finished running when this issue happens. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • OpenGL performance on rendering "virtual gallery" (textures)

    - by maticus
    I have a considerable (120-240) amount of 640x480 images that will be displayed as textured flat surfaces (4 vertex polygons) in a 3D environment. About 30-50% of them will be visible in a given frame. It is possible for them to crossover. Nothing else will be present in the environment. The question is - will the modern and/or few-years-old (lets say Radeon 9550) GPU cope with that, and what frame rate can I expect? I aim for 20FPS, but 30-40 would be nice. Would changing the resolution to 320x240 make it more probable to happen? I do not have any previous experience with performance issues of 3D graphics on modern GPUs, and unfortunately I must make a design choice. I don't want to waste time on doing something that couldn't have worked :-)

    Read the article

  • Columnstore Case Study #1: MSIT SONAR Aggregations

    - by aspiringgeek
    Preamble This is the first in a series of posts documenting big wins encountered using columnstore indexes in SQL Server 2012 & 2014.  Many of these can be found in this deck along with details such as internals, best practices, caveats, etc.  The purpose of sharing the case studies in this context is to provide an easy-to-consume quick-reference alternative. Why Columnstore? If we’re looking for a subset of columns from one or a few rows, given the right indexes, SQL Server can do a superlative job of providing an answer. If we’re asking a question which by design needs to hit lots of rows—DW, reporting, aggregations, grouping, scans, etc., SQL Server has never had a good mechanism—until columnstore. Columnstore indexes were introduced in SQL Server 2012. However, they're still largely unknown. Some adoption blockers existed; yet columnstore was nonetheless a game changer for many apps.  In SQL Server 2014, potential blockers have been largely removed & they're going to profoundly change the way we interact with our data.  The purpose of this series is to share the performance benefits of columnstore & documenting columnstore is a compelling reason to upgrade to SQL Server 2014. App: MSIT SONAR Aggregations At MSIT, performance & configuration data is captured by SCOM. We archive much of the data in a partitioned data warehouse table in SQL Server 2012 for reporting via an application called SONAR.  By definition, this is a primary use case for columnstore—report queries requiring aggregation over large numbers of rows.  New data is refreshed each night by an automated table partitioning mechanism—a best practices scenario for columnstore. The Win Compared to performance using classic indexing which resulted in the expected query plan selection including partition elimination vs. SQL Server 2012 nonclustered columnstore, query performance increased significantly.  Logical reads were reduced by over a factor of 50; both CPU & duration improved by factors of 20 or more.  Other than creating the columnstore index, no special modifications or tweaks to the app or databases schema were necessary to achieve the performance improvements.  Existing nonclustered indexes were rendered superfluous & were deleted, thus mitigating maintenance challenges such as defragging as well as conserving disk capacity. Details The table provides the raw data & summarizes the performance deltas. Logical Reads (8K pages) CPU (ms) Durn (ms) Columnstore 160,323 20,360 9,786 Conventional Table & Indexes 9,053,423 549,608 193,903 ? x56 x27 x20 The charts provide additional perspective of this data.  "Conventional vs. Columnstore Metrics" document the raw data.  Note on this linear display the magnitude of the conventional index performance vs. columnstore.  The “Metrics (?)” chart expresses these values as a ratio. Summary For DW, reports, & other BI workloads, columnstore often provides significant performance enhancements relative to conventional indexing.  I have documented here, the first in a series of reports on columnstore implementations, results from an initial implementation at MSIT in which logical reads were reduced by over a factor of 50; both CPU & duration improved by factors of 20 or more.  Subsequent features in this series document performance enhancements that are even more significant. 

    Read the article

  • Columnstore Case Study #1: MSIT SONAR Aggregations

    - by aspiringgeek
    Preamble This is the first in a series of posts documenting big wins encountered using columnstore indexes in SQL Server 2012 & 2014.  Many of these can be found in this deck along with details such as internals, best practices, caveats, etc.  The purpose of sharing the case studies in this context is to provide an easy-to-consume quick-reference alternative. Why Columnstore? If we’re looking for a subset of columns from one or a few rows, given the right indexes, SQL Server can do a superlative job of providing an answer. If we’re asking a question which by design needs to hit lots of rows—DW, reporting, aggregations, grouping, scans, etc., SQL Server has never had a good mechanism—until columnstore. Columnstore indexes were introduced in SQL Server 2012. However, they're still largely unknown. Some adoption blockers existed; yet columnstore was nonetheless a game changer for many apps.  In SQL Server 2014, potential blockers have been largely removed & they're going to profoundly change the way we interact with our data.  The purpose of this series is to share the performance benefits of columnstore & documenting columnstore is a compelling reason to upgrade to SQL Server 2014. App: MSIT SONAR Aggregations At MSIT, performance & configuration data is captured by SCOM. We archive much of the data in a partitioned data warehouse table in SQL Server 2012 for reporting via an application called SONAR.  By definition, this is a primary use case for columnstore—report queries requiring aggregation over large numbers of rows.  New data is refreshed each night by an automated table partitioning mechanism—a best practices scenario for columnstore. The Win Compared to performance using classic indexing which resulted in the expected query plan selection including partition elimination vs. SQL Server 2012 nonclustered columnstore, query performance increased significantly.  Logical reads were reduced by over a factor of 50; both CPU & duration improved by factors of 20 or more.  Other than creating the columnstore index, no special modifications or tweaks to the app or databases schema were necessary to achieve the performance improvements.  Existing nonclustered indexes were rendered superfluous & were deleted, thus mitigating maintenance challenges such as defragging as well as conserving disk capacity. Details The table provides the raw data & summarizes the performance deltas. Logical Reads (8K pages) CPU (ms) Durn (ms) Columnstore 160,323 20,360 9,786 Conventional Table & Indexes 9,053,423 549,608 193,903 ? x56 x27 x20 The charts provide additional perspective of this data.  "Conventional vs. Columnstore Metrics" document the raw data.  Note on this linear display the magnitude of the conventional index performance vs. columnstore.  The “Metrics (?)” chart expresses these values as a ratio. Summary For DW, reports, & other BI workloads, columnstore often provides significant performance enhancements relative to conventional indexing.  I have documented here, the first in a series of reports on columnstore implementations, results from an initial implementation at MSIT in which logical reads were reduced by over a factor of 50; both CPU & duration improved by factors of 20 or more.  Subsequent features in this series document performance enhancements that are even more significant. 

    Read the article

  • MySQL Cluster 7.2: Over 8x Higher Performance than Cluster 7.1

    - by Mat Keep
    0 0 1 893 5092 Homework 42 11 5974 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} Summary The scalability enhancements delivered by extensions to multi-threaded data nodes enables MySQL Cluster 7.2 to deliver over 8x higher performance than the previous MySQL Cluster 7.1 release on a recent benchmark What’s New in MySQL Cluster 7.2 MySQL Cluster 7.2 was released as GA (Generally Available) in February 2012, delivering many enhancements to performance on complex queries, new NoSQL Key / Value API, cross-data center replication and ease-of-use. These enhancements are summarized in the Figure below, and detailed in the MySQL Cluster New Features whitepaper Figure 1: Next Generation Web Services, Cross Data Center Replication and Ease-of-Use Once of the key enhancements delivered in MySQL Cluster 7.2 is extensions made to the multi-threading processes of the data nodes. Multi-Threaded Data Node Extensions The MySQL Cluster 7.2 data node is now functionally divided into seven thread types: 1) Local Data Manager threads (ldm). Note – these are sometimes also called LQH threads. 2) Transaction Coordinator threads (tc) 3) Asynchronous Replication threads (rep) 4) Schema Management threads (main) 5) Network receiver threads (recv) 6) Network send threads (send) 7) IO threads Each of these thread types are discussed in more detail below. MySQL Cluster 7.2 increases the maximum number of LDM threads from 4 to 16. The LDM contains the actual data, which means that when using 16 threads the data is more heavily partitioned (this is automatic in MySQL Cluster). Each LDM thread maintains its own set of data partitions, index partitions and REDO log. The number of LDM partitions per data node is not dynamically configurable, but it is possible, however, to map more than one partition onto each LDM thread, providing flexibility in modifying the number of LDM threads. The TC domain stores the state of in-flight transactions. This means that every new transaction can easily be assigned to a new TC thread. Testing has shown that in most cases 1 TC thread per 2 LDM threads is sufficient, and in many cases even 1 TC thread per 4 LDM threads is also acceptable. Testing also demonstrated that in some instances where the workload needed to sustain very high update loads it is necessary to configure 3 to 4 TC threads per 4 LDM threads. In the previous MySQL Cluster 7.1 release, only one TC thread was available. This limit has been increased to 16 TC threads in MySQL Cluster 7.2. The TC domain also manages the Adaptive Query Localization functionality introduced in MySQL Cluster 7.2 that significantly enhanced complex query performance by pushing JOIN operations down to the data nodes. Asynchronous Replication was separated into its own thread with the release of MySQL Cluster 7.1, and has not been modified in the latest 7.2 release. To scale the number of TC threads, it was necessary to separate the Schema Management domain from the TC domain. The schema management thread has little load, so is implemented with a single thread. The Network receiver domain was bound to 1 thread in MySQL Cluster 7.1. With the increase of threads in MySQL Cluster 7.2 it is also necessary to increase the number of recv threads to 8. This enables each receive thread to service one or more sockets used to communicate with other nodes the Cluster. The Network send thread is a new thread type introduced in MySQL Cluster 7.2. Previously other threads handled the sending operations themselves, which can provide for lower latency. To achieve highest throughput however, it has been necessary to create dedicated send threads, of which 8 can be configured. It is still possible to configure MySQL Cluster 7.2 to a legacy mode that does not use any of the send threads – useful for those workloads that are most sensitive to latency. The IO Thread is the final thread type and there have been no changes to this domain in MySQL Cluster 7.2. Multiple IO threads were already available, which could be configured to either one thread per open file, or to a fixed number of IO threads that handle the IO traffic. Except when using compression on disk, the IO threads typically have a very light load. Benchmarking the Scalability Enhancements The scalability enhancements discussed above have made it possible to scale CPU usage of each data node to more than 5x of that possible in MySQL Cluster 7.1. In addition, a number of bottlenecks have been removed, making it possible to scale data node performance by even more than 5x. Figure 2: MySQL Cluster 7.2 Delivers 8.4x Higher Performance than 7.1 The flexAsynch benchmark was used to compare MySQL Cluster 7.2 performance to 7.1 across an 8-node Intel Xeon x5670-based cluster of dual socket commodity servers (6 cores each). As the results demonstrate, MySQL Cluster 7.2 delivers over 8x higher performance per data nodes than MySQL Cluster 7.1. More details of this and other benchmarks will be published in a new whitepaper – coming soon, so stay tuned! In a following blog post, I’ll provide recommendations on optimum thread configurations for different types of server processor. You can also learn more from the Best Practices Guide to Optimizing Performance of MySQL Cluster Conclusion MySQL Cluster has achieved a range of impressive benchmark results, and set in context with the previous 7.1 release, is able to deliver over 8x higher performance per node. As a result, the multi-threaded data node extensions not only serve to increase performance of MySQL Cluster, they also enable users to achieve significantly improved levels of utilization from current and future generations of massively multi-core, multi-thread processor designs.

    Read the article

  • Wierd Results A/B Test in Google Website Optimizer

    - by Yisroel
    I set up a test in Google Website Optimizer that has a 3 variations - original (A), B, and C. In order to further validate the results of the test, I added a variation C that is exactly the same as the original. And thats where the results get weird. 6 days in to the test, the best performing variation is C. It outperforms the original by 18.4%! How is that possible? Do I now discount the results of this test entirely?

    Read the article

  • Wierd Results A/B Test in Google Website Optimizer

    - by Yisroel
    I set up a test in Google Website Optimizer that has a 3 variations - original (A), B, and C. In order to further validate the results of the test, I added a variation C that is exactly the same as the original. And thats where the results get weird. 6 days in to the test, the best performing variation is C. It outperforms the original by 18.4%! How is that possible? Do I now discount the results of this test entirely?

    Read the article

  • Weird Results A/B Test in Google Website Optimizer

    - by Yisroel
    I set up a test in Google Website Optimizer that has a 3 variations - original (A), B, and C. In order to further validate the results of the test, I added a variation C that is exactly the same as the original. And thats where the results get weird. 6 days into the test, the best performing variation is C. It outperforms the original by 18.4%! How is that possible? Do I now discount the results of this test entirely?

    Read the article

  • Very different I/O performance in C++ on Windows

    - by Mr.Gate
    Hi all, I'm a new user and my english is not so good so I hope to be clear. We're facing a performance problem using large files (1GB or more) expecially (as it seems) when you try to grow them in size. Anyway... to verify our sensations we tryed the following (on Win 7 64Bit, 4core, 8GB Ram, 32 bit code compiled with VC2008) a) Open an unexisting file. Write it from the beginning up to 1Gb in 1Mb slots. Now you have a 1Gb file. Now randomize 10000 positions within that file, seek to that position and write 50 bytes in each position, no matter what you write. Close the file and look at the results. Time to create the file is quite fast (about 0.3"), time to write 10000 times is fast all the same (about 0.03"). Very good, this is the beginnig. Now try something else... b) Open an unexisting file, seek to 1Gb-1byte and write just 1 byte. Now you have another 1Gb file. Follow the next steps exactly same way of case 'a', close the file and look at the results. Time to create the file is the faster you can imagine (about 0.00009") but write time is something you can't believe.... about 90"!!!!! b.1) Open an unexisting file, don't write any byte. Act as before, ramdomizing, seeking and writing, close the file and look at the result. Time to write is long all the same: about 90"!!!!! Ok... this is quite amazing. But there's more! c) Open again the file you crated in case 'a', don't truncate it... randomize again 10000 positions and act as before. You're fast as before, about 0,03" to write 10000 times. This sounds Ok... try another step. d) Now open the file you created in case 'b', don't truncate it... randomize again 10000 positions and act as before. You're slow again and again, but the time is reduced to... 45"!! Maybe, trying again, the time will reduce. I actually wonder why... Any Idea? The following is part of the code I used to test what I told in previuos cases (you'll have to change someting in order to have a clean compilation, I just cut & paste from some source code, sorry). The sample can read and write, in random, ordered or reverse ordered mode, but write only in random order is the clearest test. We tryed using std::fstream but also using directly CreateFile(), WriteFile() and so on the results are the same (even if std::fstream is actually a little slower). Parameters for case 'a' = -f_tempdir_\casea.dat -n10000 -t -p -w Parameters for case 'b' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -t -v -w Parameters for case 'b.1' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -t -w Parameters for case 'c' = -f_tempdir_\casea.dat -n10000 -w Parameters for case 'd' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -w Run the test (and even others) and see... // iotest.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include <windows.h> #include <iostream> #include <set> #include <vector> #include "stdafx.h" double RealTime_Microsecs() { LARGE_INTEGER fr = {0, 0}; LARGE_INTEGER ti = {0, 0}; double time = 0.0; QueryPerformanceCounter(&ti); QueryPerformanceFrequency(&fr); time = (double) ti.QuadPart / (double) fr.QuadPart; return time; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::string sFileName ; size_t stSize, stTimes, stBytes ; int retval = 0 ; char *p = NULL ; char *pPattern = NULL ; char *pReadBuf = NULL ; try { // Default stSize = 1<<30 ; // 1Gb stTimes = 1000 ; stBytes = 50 ; bool bTruncate = false ; bool bPre = false ; bool bPreFast = false ; bool bOrdered = false ; bool bReverse = false ; bool bWriteOnly = false ; // Comsumo i parametri for(int index=1; index < argc; ++index) { if ( '-' != argv[index][0] ) throw ; switch(argv[index][1]) { case 'f': sFileName = argv[index]+2 ; break ; case 's': stSize = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 'n': stTimes = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 'b':stBytes = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 't': bTruncate = true ; break ; case 'p' : bPre = true, bPreFast = false ; break ; case 'v' : bPreFast = true, bPre = false ; break ; case 'o' : bOrdered = true, bReverse = false ; break ; case 'r' : bReverse = true, bOrdered = false ; break ; case 'w' : bWriteOnly = true ; break ; default: throw ; break ; } } if ( sFileName.empty() ) { std::cout << "Usage: -f<File Name> -s<File Size> -n<Number of Reads and Writes> -b<Bytes per Read and Write> -t -p -v -o -r -w" << std::endl ; std::cout << "-t truncates the file, -p pre load the file, -v pre load 'veloce', -o writes in order mode, -r write in reverse order mode, -w Write Only" << std::endl ; std::cout << "Default: 1Gb, 1000 times, 50 bytes" << std::endl ; throw ; } if ( !stSize || !stTimes || !stBytes ) { std::cout << "Invalid Parameters" << std::endl ; return -1 ; } size_t stBestSize = 0x00100000 ; std::fstream fFile ; fFile.open(sFileName.c_str(), std::ios_base::binary|std::ios_base::out|std::ios_base::in|(bTruncate?std::ios_base::trunc:0)) ; p = new char[stBestSize] ; pPattern = new char[stBytes] ; pReadBuf = new char[stBytes] ; memset(p, 0, stBestSize) ; memset(pPattern, (int)(stBytes&0x000000ff), stBytes) ; double dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; size_t stCopySize, stSizeToCopy = stSize ; if ( bPre ) { do { stCopySize = std::min(stSizeToCopy, stBestSize) ; fFile.write(p, stCopySize) ; stSizeToCopy -= stCopySize ; } while (stSizeToCopy) ; std::cout << "Creating time is: " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; } else if ( bPreFast ) { fFile.seekp(stSize-1) ; fFile.write(p, 1) ; std::cout << "Creating Fast time is: " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; } size_t stPos ; ::srand((unsigned int)dTime) ; double dReadTime, dWriteTime ; stCopySize = stTimes ; std::vector<size_t> inVect ; std::vector<size_t> outVect ; std::set<size_t> outSet ; std::set<size_t> inSet ; // Prepare vector and set do { stPos = (size_t)(::rand()<<16) % stSize ; outVect.push_back(stPos) ; outSet.insert(stPos) ; stPos = (size_t)(::rand()<<16) % stSize ; inVect.push_back(stPos) ; inSet.insert(stPos) ; } while (--stCopySize) ; // Write & read using vectors if ( !bReverse && !bOrdered ) { std::vector<size_t>::iterator outI, inI ; outI = outVect.begin() ; inI = inVect.begin() ; stCopySize = stTimes ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; do { dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(*outI) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++outI ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(*inI) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++inI ; } } while (--stCopySize) ; std::cout << "Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stTimes, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { std::cout << "Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stTimes, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } } // End // Write in order if ( bOrdered ) { std::set<size_t>::iterator i = outSet.begin() ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != outSet.end(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(stPos) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Ordered Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { i = inSet.begin() ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != inSet.end(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(stPos) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Ordered Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } }// End // Write in reverse order if ( bReverse ) { std::set<size_t>::reverse_iterator i = outSet.rbegin() ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != outSet.rend(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(stPos) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Reverse ordered Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { i = inSet.rbegin() ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != inSet.rend(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(stPos) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Reverse ordered Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } }// End dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.close() ; std::cout << "Flush/Close Time is " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; std::cout << "Program Terminated" << std::endl ; } catch(...) { std::cout << "Something wrong or wrong parameters" << std::endl ; retval = -1 ; } if ( p ) delete []p ; if ( pPattern ) delete []pPattern ; if ( pReadBuf ) delete []pReadBuf ; return retval ; }

    Read the article

  • Very different IO performance in C/C++

    - by Roberto Tirabassi
    Hi all, I'm a new user and my english is not so good so I hope to be clear. We're facing a performance problem using large files (1GB or more) expecially (as it seems) when you try to grow them in size. Anyway... to verify our sensations we tryed the following (on Win 7 64Bit, 4core, 8GB Ram, 32 bit code compiled with VC2008) a) Open an unexisting file. Write it from the beginning up to 1Gb in 1Mb slots. Now you have a 1Gb file. Now randomize 10000 positions within that file, seek to that position and write 50 bytes in each position, no matter what you write. Close the file and look at the results. Time to create the file is quite fast (about 0.3"), time to write 10000 times is fast all the same (about 0.03"). Very good, this is the beginnig. Now try something else... b) Open an unexisting file, seek to 1Gb-1byte and write just 1 byte. Now you have another 1Gb file. Follow the next steps exactly same way of case 'a', close the file and look at the results. Time to create the file is the faster you can imagine (about 0.00009") but write time is something you can't believe.... about 90"!!!!! b.1) Open an unexisting file, don't write any byte. Act as before, ramdomizing, seeking and writing, close the file and look at the result. Time to write is long all the same: about 90"!!!!! Ok... this is quite amazing. But there's more! c) Open again the file you crated in case 'a', don't truncate it... randomize again 10000 positions and act as before. You're fast as before, about 0,03" to write 10000 times. This sounds Ok... try another step. d) Now open the file you created in case 'b', don't truncate it... randomize again 10000 positions and act as before. You're slow again and again, but the time is reduced to... 45"!! Maybe, trying again, the time will reduce. I actually wonder why... Any Idea? The following is part of the code I used to test what I told in previuos cases (you'll have to change someting in order to have a clean compilation, I just cut & paste from some source code, sorry). The sample can read and write, in random, ordered or reverse ordered mode, but write only in random order is the clearest test. We tryed using std::fstream but also using directly CreateFile(), WriteFile() and so on the results are the same (even if std::fstream is actually a little slower). Parameters for case 'a' = -f_tempdir_\casea.dat -n10000 -t -p -w Parameters for case 'b' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -t -v -w Parameters for case 'b.1' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -t -w Parameters for case 'c' = -f_tempdir_\casea.dat -n10000 -w Parameters for case 'd' = -f_tempdir_\caseb.dat -n10000 -w Run the test (and even others) and see... // iotest.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include <windows.h> #include <iostream> #include <set> #include <vector> #include "stdafx.h" double RealTime_Microsecs() { LARGE_INTEGER fr = {0, 0}; LARGE_INTEGER ti = {0, 0}; double time = 0.0; QueryPerformanceCounter(&ti); QueryPerformanceFrequency(&fr); time = (double) ti.QuadPart / (double) fr.QuadPart; return time; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::string sFileName ; size_t stSize, stTimes, stBytes ; int retval = 0 ; char *p = NULL ; char *pPattern = NULL ; char *pReadBuf = NULL ; try { // Default stSize = 1<<30 ; // 1Gb stTimes = 1000 ; stBytes = 50 ; bool bTruncate = false ; bool bPre = false ; bool bPreFast = false ; bool bOrdered = false ; bool bReverse = false ; bool bWriteOnly = false ; // Comsumo i parametri for(int index=1; index < argc; ++index) { if ( '-' != argv[index][0] ) throw ; switch(argv[index][1]) { case 'f': sFileName = argv[index]+2 ; break ; case 's': stSize = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 'n': stTimes = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 'b':stBytes = xw::str::strtol(argv[index]+2) ; break ; case 't': bTruncate = true ; break ; case 'p' : bPre = true, bPreFast = false ; break ; case 'v' : bPreFast = true, bPre = false ; break ; case 'o' : bOrdered = true, bReverse = false ; break ; case 'r' : bReverse = true, bOrdered = false ; break ; case 'w' : bWriteOnly = true ; break ; default: throw ; break ; } } if ( sFileName.empty() ) { std::cout << "Usage: -f<File Name> -s<File Size> -n<Number of Reads and Writes> -b<Bytes per Read and Write> -t -p -v -o -r -w" << std::endl ; std::cout << "-t truncates the file, -p pre load the file, -v pre load 'veloce', -o writes in order mode, -r write in reverse order mode, -w Write Only" << std::endl ; std::cout << "Default: 1Gb, 1000 times, 50 bytes" << std::endl ; throw ; } if ( !stSize || !stTimes || !stBytes ) { std::cout << "Invalid Parameters" << std::endl ; return -1 ; } size_t stBestSize = 0x00100000 ; std::fstream fFile ; fFile.open(sFileName.c_str(), std::ios_base::binary|std::ios_base::out|std::ios_base::in|(bTruncate?std::ios_base::trunc:0)) ; p = new char[stBestSize] ; pPattern = new char[stBytes] ; pReadBuf = new char[stBytes] ; memset(p, 0, stBestSize) ; memset(pPattern, (int)(stBytes&0x000000ff), stBytes) ; double dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; size_t stCopySize, stSizeToCopy = stSize ; if ( bPre ) { do { stCopySize = std::min(stSizeToCopy, stBestSize) ; fFile.write(p, stCopySize) ; stSizeToCopy -= stCopySize ; } while (stSizeToCopy) ; std::cout << "Creating time is: " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; } else if ( bPreFast ) { fFile.seekp(stSize-1) ; fFile.write(p, 1) ; std::cout << "Creating Fast time is: " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; } size_t stPos ; ::srand((unsigned int)dTime) ; double dReadTime, dWriteTime ; stCopySize = stTimes ; std::vector<size_t> inVect ; std::vector<size_t> outVect ; std::set<size_t> outSet ; std::set<size_t> inSet ; // Prepare vector and set do { stPos = (size_t)(::rand()<<16) % stSize ; outVect.push_back(stPos) ; outSet.insert(stPos) ; stPos = (size_t)(::rand()<<16) % stSize ; inVect.push_back(stPos) ; inSet.insert(stPos) ; } while (--stCopySize) ; // Write & read using vectors if ( !bReverse && !bOrdered ) { std::vector<size_t>::iterator outI, inI ; outI = outVect.begin() ; inI = inVect.begin() ; stCopySize = stTimes ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; do { dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(*outI) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++outI ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(*inI) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++inI ; } } while (--stCopySize) ; std::cout << "Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stTimes, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { std::cout << "Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stTimes, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } } // End // Write in order if ( bOrdered ) { std::set<size_t>::iterator i = outSet.begin() ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != outSet.end(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(stPos) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Ordered Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { i = inSet.begin() ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != inSet.end(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(stPos) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Ordered Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } }// End // Write in reverse order if ( bReverse ) { std::set<size_t>::reverse_iterator i = outSet.rbegin() ; dWriteTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != outSet.rend(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekp(stPos) ; fFile.write(pPattern, stBytes) ; dWriteTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Reverse ordered Write time is " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dWriteTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; if ( !bWriteOnly ) { i = inSet.rbegin() ; dReadTime = 0.0 ; stCopySize = 0 ; for(; i != inSet.rend(); ++i) { stPos = *i ; dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.seekg(stPos) ; fFile.read(pReadBuf, stBytes) ; dReadTime += RealTime_Microsecs() - dTime ; ++stCopySize ; } std::cout << "Reverse ordered Read time is " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime, 5, 'f') << " in " << xw::str::itoa(stCopySize) << " (Ave: " << xw::str::itoa(dReadTime/stCopySize, 10, 'f') << ")" << std::endl ; } }// End dTime = RealTime_Microsecs() ; fFile.close() ; std::cout << "Flush/Close Time is " << xw::str::itoa(RealTime_Microsecs()-dTime, 5, 'f') << std::endl ; std::cout << "Program Terminated" << std::endl ; } catch(...) { std::cout << "Something wrong or wrong parameters" << std::endl ; retval = -1 ; } if ( p ) delete []p ; if ( pPattern ) delete []pPattern ; if ( pReadBuf ) delete []pReadBuf ; return retval ; }

    Read the article

  • How to test controllers with CodeIgniter PART 2?

    - by Jeff
    I am having difficulties testing Controllers in Codeigniter: I use Toast but when I invoke my Home Controller class I get an exception that "db" is not defined. Has anybody an idea how to test this 1-1? Thanks class Home_tests extends Toast { function __construct() { parent::__construct(__FILE__); // Load any models, libraries etc. you need here } function test_select_user() { $controller = new Home(); $controller->getDbUser('[email protected]','password'); assert($query->num_rows() == 0 ); } }

    Read the article

  • create an english test

    - by thienthai
    hi everyone, i want to create an english test software using window form and C# something like bellow: Hi David, Thanks for your e-mail. I hope things get easier for you before the weekend. You’ve been (be) really busy this week! 1 _______ (you / make) your vacation plans yet? Last May, I 2 _________(go) to Japan with my family again. We 3 _______ (be) there three times now! But this time, we 4 _______ (not stay) with my aunt in Tokyo. Instead, we 5 ______(drive) around to different places. Then in July, my friend Angie and I 6 ________ (travel) to Peru. 7 _______ (you / ever / be) there? It’s one of the most interesting places I 8 _______ (ever / visit). The ruins of Machu Picchu are amazing. Write soon! Mariko how can i display it in window form that we can fill the brackets (____) directly everyone help me thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >