On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Marc Delisle marc@infomarc.info wrote:
Madhura Jayaratne a écrit :
Hi devs,
As discussed during the last team meeting, I did some profiling to
evaluate
the performance of 4.4 series against 3.5 series. I used xdebug for profiling and for each of the pages evaluated, I averaged among three reading to overcome any errors.
The values are in milliseconds and contains profiling overhead as well. However, this should not be a problem to compare between two versions.
Page 3.5 branch 4.4 branch 4.4 / 3.5 Table
browse
5230.67 24548.67 4.69 Table structure 2974.67 8060.67 2.71 Table SQL 760.33 1770.33 2.33 Table operations 2564.33 7626.33 2.97 Row edit 2012 10980.67 5.46 Row insert 2387.67 11553 4.84 Database structure 6280.33 5076.33 0.81 Database SQL 1511.67 1570 1.04 Database operations 3115.33 2750.67 0.88 Server databases 2108 3068.67 1.46 Navigation refresh 626 4092.33 6.54 While I got mixed results where for certain pages 3.5 was faster and for others 4.4 was faster, for most of the pages 3.5 was much faster.
I am attaching the results in csv format as well as output files from profiling. With KCacheGrind or WinCacheGrind you should be able to
further
analyze the profiling results.
Madhura, when you browse this table in 4.4 with the profiling overhead, you get an average of 24.5 seconds. What do you get when doing the same, without profiling overhead?
For all the above I used sakila database and film table for the table level.
Without profiling overhead it takes 1155.5 ms.