Bug #2567 for IPC-Shareable: Low performance

Tue May 13 11:57:04 2003 Guest - Ticket created

Subject:

Low performance

I used this module. Then, after profiling, I realized that this module was my bottleneck. Reimplementing the FIFO queues in a database table in fact improved the performance radically. It's very nice and useful, though. Just not very fast.

Sat May 29 15:22:16 2004 Guest - Correspondence added

From:

mrgleeco

[guest - Tue May 13 11:57:04 2003]: Show quoted text

> I used this module. Then, after profiling, I realized that this module > was my bottleneck. Reimplementing the FIFO queues in a database table > in fact improved the performance radically. > > It's very nice and useful, though. Just not very fast.

indeed. i exp. the same exact thing after upgrading from .3 to .6 of this module. Benchmarks showed a radical departure from performance to serious bottleneck. NRFPT afaict. my guess is the freeze/thaw implementations are suspect. what's esp. irksome is that IPC::Shareable (versions 0.6 or 0.3) have had so little documentation or feedback. ugh... -g

Thu May 19 17:16:38 2005 Guest - Correspondence added

[guest - Sat May 29 15:22:16 2004]: Show quoted text

> [guest - Tue May 13 11:57:04 2003]: >

> > I used this module. Then, after profiling, I realized that this module > > was my bottleneck. Reimplementing the FIFO queues in a database table > > in fact improved the performance radically. > > > > It's very nice and useful, though. Just not very fast.

> > indeed. i exp. the same exact thing after upgrading from .3 to .6 of > this module. Benchmarks showed a radical departure from performance to > serious > bottleneck. NRFPT afaict. my guess is the freeze/thaw implementations > are suspect. > > what's esp. irksome is that IPC::Shareable (versions 0.6 or 0.3) have > had so little documentation or feedback. ugh... > > -g > >

If you comment all the lines in the module that start with word "next" it will increase preformance.