Closed (won't fix)
Project:
Views (for Drupal 7)
Version:
6.x-2.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Minor
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
2 Jun 2009 at 16:53 UTC
Updated:
3 Jun 2009 at 16:24 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
kenorb commentedTested on AMD Athlon Dual Core 3GHz
Comment #2
merlinofchaos commentedThat's just including required code. I don't know any way to optimize that. 5.99sec seems awfully long, I've never seen anything that nasty from just including some code.
Comment #3
kenorb commentedThe content of file can be saved in cache to use it on the second refreshment to make it faster.
I know that the whole Drupal working on file includes instead of caching it (especially on theme functionality), but where it's possible to optimize it it's good to do that.
What do you think about that idea?
5.99sec was a sum of 79 calls of this function within one page refreshment. If somebody using more handlers, it will take much longer.
P.S. When I executed the profiler, that line was in top 10. I repeat it many times and each time it was the same.
I can make provide more tests if this could be consider.
I'm working on cache engine, where I can force caching on similar functions, but it will take me a while to make it compatible with Views.
Comment #4
merlinofchaos commentedIsn't this what things like APC do?
Comment #5
kenorb commentedProbably true, but only in case when you using APC it will be cached.
What if somebody not using it or hosting server doesn't support that?
I haven't seen in requirements that everybody need to use external cache.
Sorry I just found out that it was 5ms per one maximum execution, not sec:)
So 79 calls took in total 85ms only on this line (136ms the whole function). See attachment.
Page: day view on calendar
I just want to make my website work faster, and 2,5sec is quite long for one refreshment so I'm looking for some ways to improve it and in top 5 I've got views_include_handler()
Any workaround without APC, xcache or memcache?
Comment #6
merlinofchaos commentedOk, there is absolutely no way that any caching Views MIGHT do will do better than 5ms. It would be a lot of effort to maybe trim off 1ms but the extra code weight would probably actually cause it to take longer, IMO.
Comment #7
kenorb commentedOk, thanks for your time:)