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?