Re: [WebDNA] php/mySQL version of WebDNA Speed Test?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2009
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 102127
interpreted = N
texte = Donovan, Thank you for the comments. I realize you're very busy. I agree 100% with= everything you've said,=20 and that is why I posted what I did. The "beat the pants off" remark was = meant only to get some=20 activity going in regard to my post -- and it worked :) Understand that I obviously want WebDNA to shine, because I am going to b= at for it here at work. I=20 am not posting this stuff to tear WebDNA down, I'm doing it in the hopes = that people smarter than=20 myself can verify the accuracy of the tests (and I too don't feel it's qu= ite there). Lastly, you mention the difference in how mySQL handles connections, and = that is central to my=20 advocacy of WebDNA here at work -- we have been having issues with mySQL = connection on high load=20 and I am trying to replace those functions with WebDNA. In order to do th= is I have to convince my=20 IT dept. that WebDNA is better in this regard. I have sent Bob Minor both tests and he said he will run them on the same= machine when he has=20 time. I will post results. -Dan On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:16:52 -0600 Donovan Brooke
wrote: > Dan Strong wrote: >> I can't believe not a single person replied to this. From what I can=20 >> see, unfortunately, php/mySQL beats the pants off of WebDNA in terms o= f=20 >> speed, by nearly 10 to 1 :( -Dan >=20 > That's not what I see. On the tests that appear remotely apples to appl= es, the records go back=20 >and forth. List Words: WebDNA is about > 21 times faster than your PHP test with the faster > tics being from 0 to 1 compared to your test results of 21 tics. >=20 > Regarding comments, I just haven't had the time to look at it yet... >=20 > I wouldn't be surprised at all if PHP is faster in certain tasks, but > stating php/MySQL beats the pants off WebDNA isn't apparent in your > posting at all.. >=20 > "Open database (2 fields), append 500 records" >=20 >=20 > WebDNA averages 2 or 3 tics for the top speed posters and your > result is 5 tics. That shows to me that WebDNA is faster in that > test (though I doubt this test is apples to apples). >=20 > Regarding the search stuff.. it is just not apples to apples. >=20 > the connection to a MySQL database works differently > than WebDNA table searching.. so you'd have to somehow > factor in that connection to measure time.. or you'd have > to include the searching of more than one data to get > an idea of differences.. (I'm guessing WebDNA really > shines in that area) >=20 >For true apples to apples, you'd have to adjust WebDNA's > test to use the MySQL contexts. >=20 > Also, you can't compare "totals" because WebDNA's test > includes tests that this template does not. >=20 > Anyway, >=20 > The idea of comparing the two languaqes is interesting, but it > appears there is a ways to go before your comparison is informative. >=20 > I would suggest to leave that zip file up for a while and maybe > one of us (someone from the list) will have the time to look at it. >=20 > Donovan >=20 > P.S. it's always good to post machine specs. ;-) >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Donovan D. Brooke PH: 1 (608) 770-3822 > ------------------------------------------------ > WebDNA Software Corporation > 16192 Coastal Highway > Lewes, DE 19958 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Donovan, Thank you for the comments. I realize you're very busy. I agree 100% with= everything you've said,=20 and that is why I posted what I did. The "beat the pants off" remark was = meant only to get some=20 activity going in regard to my post -- and it worked :) Understand that I obviously want WebDNA to shine, because I am going to b= at for it here at work. I=20 am not posting this stuff to tear WebDNA down, I'm doing it in the hopes = that people smarter than=20 myself can verify the accuracy of the tests (and I too don't feel it's qu= ite there). Lastly, you mention the difference in how mySQL handles connections, and = that is central to my=20 advocacy of WebDNA here at work -- we have been having issues with mySQL = connection on high load=20 and I am trying to replace those functions with WebDNA. In order to do th= is I have to convince my=20 IT dept. that WebDNA is better in this regard. I have sent Bob Minor both tests and he said he will run them on the same= machine when he has=20 time. I will post results. -Dan On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:16:52 -0600 Donovan Brooke wrote: > Dan Strong wrote: >> I can't believe not a single person replied to this. From what I can=20 >> see, unfortunately, php/mySQL beats the pants off of WebDNA in terms o= f=20 >> speed, by nearly 10 to 1 :( -Dan >=20 > That's not what I see. On the tests that appear remotely apples to appl= es, the records go back=20 >and forth. List Words: WebDNA is about > 21 times faster than your PHP test with the faster > tics being from 0 to 1 compared to your test results of 21 tics. >=20 > Regarding comments, I just haven't had the time to look at it yet... >=20 > I wouldn't be surprised at all if PHP is faster in certain tasks, but > stating php/MySQL beats the pants off WebDNA isn't apparent in your > posting at all.. >=20 > "Open database (2 fields), append 500 records" >=20 >=20 > WebDNA averages 2 or 3 tics for the top speed posters and your > result is 5 tics. That shows to me that WebDNA is faster in that > test (though I doubt this test is apples to apples). >=20 > Regarding the search stuff.. it is just not apples to apples. >=20 > the connection to a MySQL database works differently > than WebDNA table searching.. so you'd have to somehow > factor in that connection to measure time.. or you'd have > to include the searching of more than one data to get > an idea of differences.. (I'm guessing WebDNA really > shines in that area) >=20 >For true apples to apples, you'd have to adjust WebDNA's > test to use the MySQL contexts. >=20 > Also, you can't compare "totals" because WebDNA's test > includes tests that this template does not. >=20 > Anyway, >=20 > The idea of comparing the two languaqes is interesting, but it > appears there is a ways to go before your comparison is informative. >=20 > I would suggest to leave that zip file up for a while and maybe > one of us (someone from the list) will have the time to look at it. >=20 > Donovan >=20 > P.S. it's always good to post machine specs. ;-) >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Donovan D. Brooke PH: 1 (608) 770-3822 > ------------------------------------------------ > WebDNA Software Corporation > 16192 Coastal Highway > Lewes, DE 19958 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
"Dan Strong"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Re:Emailer and encryption (1997)
FORMS: Returning a specific page (1997)
[OT] will work for... (2003)
WebCat2b13 Command Reference Doc error (1997)
[WebDNA] RE: webdna right click protect (2009)
Sorting by date (1997)
WebCat templates for TyphoonPro admin (1999)
[WriteFile] problems (1997)
RE: creating writefile data from a nested search (1997)
duplicate cart numbers (2002)
PCS Frames (1997)
RE: Javascripts (1998)
TCPConnect / Current Temperature (2004)
CSS and SSI books (2004)
Help name our technology! I found it (1997)
Mixing and/or in searches (1998)
broken [include]s (1998)
Ampersand is breaking search context (1999)
Thanks ! (1997)
[TaxableTotal] - not working with AOL and IE (1997)