[Rubygems-developers] I've replaced LoadPathManager; good performance results

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 11 12:58:18 EST 2004


On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 03:13:55AM +1100, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>                                          old        new        old        new
>   LIBRARY                 |  DIRECT  |   GEM    |   GEM    |  COMBO   |  COMBO
>   ------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------
>   'rake'                  |  0.203s  |  3.772s  |  0.757s  |  0.481s  |  0.426s
>   'redcloth'              |  0.477s  |  0.577s  |  0.089s  |  1.355s  |  0.433s
>   'log4r'                 |  0.430s  |  0.908s  |  0.767s  |  2.545s  |  0.476s
>   'extensions/all'        |  0.536s  |  5.594s  |  0.795s  |  2.741s  |  0.643s
>   'dev-utils/debug'       |  0.640s  |  5.697s  |  1.879s  |  2.056s  |  0.820s
>   'celsoft.com/template'  |  0.075s  |  0.362s  |  0.174s  |  0.096s  |  0.019s
[...]
> However, there's a significant improvement in speed more or less
> across the board.  I'll be running all the speed tests again, instead
> of collating data taken from a 12-hour period, but the results gave me
> confidence enough to commit the code.

Could you also provide the following info?
* number of installed packages (whole list if possible)
* value of $: after requiring the lib

I believe they could prove fairly useful, especially the former.

Regarding your methodology, are all these values obtained in the same
conditions regarding FS caching? Is the  require 'rubygems'  overhead
included in the above figures or accounted separately?

-- 
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list