Rails Ruby on Rails

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  Andrew White July 9th, 2010 @ 03:24 PM

  • Importance changed from “” to “Low”

  A lot of performance work has gone on since the release of beta4 - can you check against edge rails?

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  wout July 9th, 2010 @ 04:02 PM

  Same view on edge:

  Completed 200 OK in 527ms (Views: 47.5ms | ActiveRecord: 2.8ms)

  Definitely better but still twice as much as on 2.3.8.
  Maybe it's too early to make these kind of evaluations...

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  drjoke July 12th, 2010 @ 05:57 PM

  wout I think we are in the same boat. Can you please try this?

  puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_i]}}
  

  Replace User with your favorite model and 1000 with the max number of rows you probably have for that model.

  Please try this in console for both 2.3.8 and 3.0 and report back the results.

  It would be great if you can also try this in production.

  I also have a ticket here: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5098-rails-3-...

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  wout July 12th, 2010 @ 06:41 PM

  • Tag set to “loading time”

  Hi Moodang,

  The app I converted is not in production yet, but I tested on my local development machine in both development and production. I used my Page class since that's the most complicated table.

  puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{Page.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_i]}}
  

  Rails 2.3.8

  development
  2.370000   0.260000   2.630000 (  3.294963)
  
  production
  2.220000   0.220000   2.440000 (  3.001813)
  

  Rails 3.0.0.beta4

  development
  6.110000   0.330000   6.440000 (  7.201925)
  
  production:
  6.380000   0.420000   6.800000 (  7.511156)
  

  In Rails 3 production is actually slower...
  I ran each benchmark 5 times and picked the most average result.

  Tested on:
  - 2.53GHz MacBook Pro with osx 10.6.4 and 4GB ram - Latest release of ruby EE 1.8.7 - Mongrel - Latest version of MySQL

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Daniel Guettler July 12th, 2010 @ 08:17 PM

  Just to chime in here. Here are my results for Rails 2.x and Rails 3.x for both Ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.1

  
  Rails 2 & Ruby 1.8.7
  ==============================================================
  Loading production environment (Rails 2.3.5)
  >> puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_s]}}
    1.580000   0.140000   1.720000 (  1.755681)
  
  Rails 2 & Ruby 1.9.1
  Loading production environment (Rails 2.3.5)
  >> puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_i]}}
    1.160000   0.100000   1.260000 (  1.498934)
  
  Rails 3 & Ruby 1.8.7
  ==============================================================
  Loading production environment (Rails 3.0.0.beta4)
  irb(main):001:0> puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_i]}}
    6.200000   0.270000   6.470000 (  6.666850)
  
  Rails 3 & Ruby 1.9.1
  ==============================================================
  Loading production environment (Rails 3.0.0.beta4)
  irb(main):001:0> puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_i]}}
    2.570000   0.110000   2.680000 (  2.710209)
  
  Rails Edge & Ruby 1.9.1
  ==============================================================
  Loading production environment (Rails 3.0.0.beta4)
  irb(main):001:0> puts Benchmark.measure{5000.times{User.find :first, :conditions => ["id = ?", (rand * 1000 + 1).to_s]}}
    2.120000   0.140000   2.260000 (  2.408399)
  

  Is there a good way how you can do git bisect over multiple rails version? Obviously the setup etc of the application and dependent gems changes quite a bit between Rails 2.x and Rails 3.

  Thanks, Daniel

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  wout July 17th, 2010 @ 02:24 PM

  I installed ruby 1.9.2rc1 and the app is nearly back to normal loading times.
  This is ruby 1.8.7:

  Completed 200 OK in 1468ms (Views: 776.6ms | ActiveRecord: 1.7ms)
  

  Same app, same view, same machine but ruby 1.9.2:

  Completed 200 OK in 525ms (Views: 298.6ms | ActiveRecord: 1.7ms)
  

  A lot of time is lost on the views, and still 525ms is rather high.
  But I can work with this, we need to go in production beta next month.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  wout September 27th, 2010 @ 10:32 PM

  Hi,

  Just wanted to let you know we went in production last week and loading times are blazingly fast (http://paspartout.com). New relic gives us 72ms average response time, which is about 10 times faster than the rails 3 beta tests we were concerned about. Great job!

  Wout

• 

  Santiago Pastorino September 28th, 2010 @ 08:53 PM

  wout, and in comparison with 2.3?.
  This ticket can be closed so?

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  wout September 28th, 2010 @ 09:09 PM

  I can't really compare to 2.3.
  In fact I started building this project with 2.3 but than switched development to 3.

  I noticed the performance drawback so I opened this ticket.
  So comparing isn'r really possible.

  I have another similar app running in 2.3.8 and the average loading time is 253ms
  But paspartout (rails 3) runs on an 8-core Intel i7 with 8GB ram, the other app runs on a dual core AMD with 4GB ram, so I have no idea how that compares.

• 

  Santiago Pastorino September 28th, 2010 @ 09:40 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “resolved”

  Ok so i'm closing it if you find some issue related with performance again please open another ticket :). Thanks.