Return-Path: 
 <user-return-51332-apmail-ant-user-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 19999 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2005 09:26:50 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2005 09:26:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 80589 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2005 09:26:46 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-user-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79815 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2005 09:26:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Users List" <user.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Users List" <user@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list user@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79802 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jul 2005 09:26:43 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:26:43 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Received: from [62.156.183.195] (HELO gate2.seeburger.de) (62.156.183.195)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:26:36 -0700
Received: from (SEEDEBREXCHCL.seeburger.de) [10.0.0.7]
	by gate2.seeburger.de with esmtp   (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
	id 1DxLhu-0007Yx-02; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:26:38 +0200
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Performance difference between 1.6.1 and 1.6.4 (in eclipse)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:26:05 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <761E4BE8F2661749BF0922125848D036126239@SEEDEBREXCHCL.seeburger.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [[**SPAM**]] - Re: Performance difference between 1.6.1 and
 1.6.4 (in eclipse) - Bayesian Filter detected spam
thread-index: AcV7rUfo1JsF13W/Roi6OjGZv4hiAQWFq34w
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Poll=E4hne=2E_Ullrich?= <U.Pollaehne@seeburger.de>
To: "Ant Users List" <user@ant.apache.org>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Hi,

I did not follow the list thoroughly. Are there any news on the subject?

Ullrich.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kev Jackson [mailto:kevin.jackson@it.fts-vn.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:18 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Cc: 'Ant Users List'
> Subject: [[**SPAM**]] - Re: Performance difference between 1.6.1 and
> 1.6.4 (in eclipse) - Bayesian Filter detected spam
>=20
>=20
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
>=20
> >Ullrich was kind enough to provide me data gathered by
> >my own performance listener, which shows timings for
> >tasks as well as targets:
> >
> >Timing by tasks in Ant 1.6.2:        in Ant 1.6.5
> >----------- ------ ------ ---------- ----------- ------
> >19.578,0 ms 175,2%    24x antcall    62.235,0 ms 189,0%
> > 5.638,0 ms  50,5%   434x see.get     6.308,0 ms  19,2%
> > 1.957,0 ms  17,5%    25x import     14.238,0 ms  43,2%
> > 1.269,0 ms  11,4% 15131x property   11.775,0 ms  35,8%
> >   563,0 ms   5,0%    43x delete        608,0 ms   1,8%
> >    93,0 ms   0,8%   101x dirname       221,0 ms   0,7%
> >    47,0 ms   0,4%     1x tstamp         47,0 ms   0,1%
> >    30,0 ms   0,3%    25x presetdef      16,0 ms   0,0%
> >    15,0 ms   0,1%   430x basename      453,0 ms   1,4%
> >     0,0 ms   0,0%    78x mkdir          64,0 ms   0,2%
> >
> >11.172,0 ms 100,0%     1x TOTAL      32.922,0 ms 100,0%
> >
> >So this data seems to indicate a significant slow down of
> ><import> and <property> more than <antcall>. The combined
> >slow down of these 2 tasks amounts to 23.2 seconds which
> >is pretty much the whole slow down. <antcall>'s own perf
> >data is masked by that of the nested tasks, but most
> >likely peanuts.
> >
> >Does anybody have any clue to why these two tasks got so
> >much slower in between patch releases? The slow down of
> ><import> is more dramatic than <property>, since for
> >25 calls 'only'.
> >
> >15K <property> calls might be unusual a bit, but still.
> >
> > =20
> >
> Checking importTask revisions shows nothing that should cause=20
> a massive=20
> slowdown.
> Could it have something to do with no longer caching the=20
> introspectionhelper in IntrospectionHelper getHelper?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@ant.apache.org