Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 90346 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2001 20:12:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 90335 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 20:12:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:09:02 -0700 From: Brian Pane Subject: Re: 2.0.26? To: dev@httpd.apache.org Message-id: <3B8E9D5E.9050402@pacbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 References: <20010830160446.053A246993@koj.rkbloom.net> <131e01c1317e$4de973b0$94c0b0d0@roweclan.net> <03dd01c13188$7887e610$b8381b09@sashimi> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1662 Bill Stoddard wrote: >>Certainly converting mod_mime >>to a hash makes the other key whiner of "we've got to get this out the door" look >>equally foolish. That patch ate a week of several people's lives. I hope the >>performance improvement proves worth it. >> The hashes themselves seem to be an improvement. Previously, apr_table_get was a hotspot in performance profiles, and now it isn't any more. What's not clear, however, is how much of a speedup we're getting from all the subsequent enhancements to avoid copying in the same-pool case (which is where all the real complexity is). Anybody have benchmark or profile data on this part? --Brian