Return-Path: 
 <users-return-60720-apmail-myfaces-users-archive=myfaces.apache.org@myfaces.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 822F510D7C
	for <apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Mon,  9 Sep 2013 20:05:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 97963 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2013 20:05:15 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 97447 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2013 20:05:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.myfaces.apache.org>
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 97427 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2013 20:05:13 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:05:13 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,PLING_QUERY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mkienenb@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.82.170] (HELO mail-we0-f170.google.com) (74.125.82.170)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:05:07 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w62so4825070wes.29
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=SRKcjV6bx3j93yfz24SqAkVJKyxgg/0sD/VGJA1TmEs=;
        b=GXBFUC0ZugUq1vcQ99bSrqOnc+n3XhyF/18fkGTioghNkd8U4l9GmLp5nlpXCjpJIe
         Tygy2/o9hbyiCt0NkqC99NBlLr0+IFaWMFID9YYNZaCCOId8ZG/1PFnwbVK3tJvSyzS6
         S0BL6RRxCmQgqlDTWXxoYZPPpO+0c5j4sRvXtOM0v1aVKYCg9H+UKZIYrqjt/r9vorZt
         g6uUv/S72rYhMQWj5Rv7u6wQ82MTRJdUV+rK7rZo02rsql5YcpPumuq0fNQU/lPGwGTd
         kIvsCjucj2g/hAngpGXZSuyTDLKNrfNZssv0x2z0mVQyeulQccbuPhZq8QiOX10vgSGw
         B+tw==
X-Received: by 10.180.160.240 with SMTP id xn16mr9848665wib.62.1378757087152;
 Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.42.194 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADwHx2o_G6B36tgfNF7T0ETnvWBU4uU3m=c67czYPFJPGeSB5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADwHx2q48vuAiugd63cuyiBZDhynxehV8wtOdmJcMmTb-DDx+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM1yOjYivN55c+5qdgByKD8fQi-apQ7mQ8ZU9rdGz3=1O2k-gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM1yOjbDFQ7OzZftnegv3BoG6ysWPqLHYqpAgmjxPzk+JjTheQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADwHx2o_G6B36tgfNF7T0ETnvWBU4uU3m=c67czYPFJPGeSB5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:04:26 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAM1yOjb2aPbDQuJf9yX6=t+j5ORR7xRtw5uD675j5sv1DMN7bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FacesServlet.service() method eating too much time while serving
 requests (high self-time) ?!
To: Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com>
Cc: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>,
 MyFaces Discussion <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6251b069515604e5f8e6d7
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--047d7b6251b069515604e5f8e6d7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

43% seems too high a result for a method that only calls other methods and
does nothing itself.
Something is still being misrepresented in your results.  Finding what that
is will likely clear up your question.


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Ertio Lew <ertiop93@gmail.com> wrote:

> As pointed out by @mkienenb in his answer at StackOverflow[here
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/18700523/530153], during the above profiling
> test I excluded the org.apache.myfaces methods, so I did a fresh
> profiling test & I'm posting below the new result snapshot.
>
> [image: enter image description here]
>
> But you can still see that a lot of time overhead is caused due to Self
> times of Myfaces/JSF methods. I'm sure that my code isn't being included
> in these self times because while profiling I filtered out only the core
> Java classes, so all my methods are included & also I can see them in the
> snapshot. For e.g. px10.channelController.init() is the method that
> retrieves from database & process all data to be shown for page.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> And by "here" I am suggesting the myfaces mailing lists in case it wasn't
>> clear.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Trying to have a discussion on StackOverflow using comments isn't the
>> > best approach.   Go ahead and make your comments on here if you would
>> > like to continue discussing the situation.
>>
>
>

--047d7b6251b069515604e5f8e6d7--