CF Performance vs. Foundation (Re: Worth it for an object to cache its own IMPs?)

[sstevenson at mac.com (Scott Stevenson)]

On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:17 PM, Tobias Peciva wrote:

> Sooo ... what did it say? If it listed Foundation as the big 
> performance hog, which methods in particular were bogging you down?

I'm continually tweaking things and re-examining, but there were no big 
surprises. I'm just constantly hammering the standard collection 
methods, at least that's what the overview suggested. As I said, the 
line-by-line stuff didn't seem to be working very well.


> By default, Shark samples all processes. So what you're probably 
> seeing is that your process used so little processor time that Shark 
> only hit it once or twice. In Shark's Profile view, you can check the 
> popup list near the bottom of the window to see the distribution of 
> samples between processes. If your system is mostly idle, the 
> mach_kernel process will probably have about 99% of samples.
>
> To sample your process only, do Shark > Target Process > Attach..., 
> select your process and make sure that the "Only sample this 
> application" checkbox is checked. That should give you more usable 
> performance results.

Nah, that was the first thing I did.  I'm all over that. :)


    - Scott

--
Tree House Ideas
http://treehouseideas.com/