@TomK - I ran the file on it’s own with no other CF - and I took an average runtime from a lot of requests.

@Todd - Yup, it was off

@Edward - This is something else that stumps me. You would have thought that CFScript and CFTags go through the same compiler and end up with the same net result - but as you can see, that is clearly not the case (and why is one so much faster?)

@Sean - I see what you are saying, but again why? Why would I want to write some CF (and therefore adopt a hefty license cost at the same time) when the equivalent JSP ( in a lot of cases and leveraging JSTL) is not any harder to do but has better performance (and I would guess better reliability as there is less links in the chain)?

Instead we should be asking ourselves - ‘what will CF give me that JSP will not do?’ and futher to that - ‘what solutions/frameworks exist to give us that functionality?’

<%
long start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();

Object result = new Long(0);
Object limit = new Long(1000000);for (Object i = new Long(0); ((Long)i).longValue() <= ((Long)limit).longValue(); i = new Long(((Long)i).longValue() + 1))
{
result = new Long(((Long)result).longValue() + ((Long)i).longValue());
}
%>

<%=result %>
<BR>
Execution Time: <%= java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis() - start %>ms.

I’ll repost with angle brackets escaped…

You’d be closer comparing it to code like this:

Execution Time: ms.

The execution time of this is around 130ms. That’s around 30x slower than the example with pure builtin types.

Now, yes, there’s still one order of magnitude between my JSP above and CF’s time but there’s a lot of additional machinery in the CF code.

You need to bear in mind that all of these little performance comparisons we see are testing completely unrealistic code fragments.

After all, how many real world program actually perform a numeric addition 1,000,000 times in a single request? You need to look at the real world difference under load of typical requests - stuff that talks to databases and does simple string processing…

Since CF is weakly typed there will be a bunch of extra code that is generated “under the hood”. That extra code might prevent the compiler from making the same optimizations and resulting in a loop with a million iterations.

You might want to add something non-trivial to the body of the loop, such as a method call or dynamic mathematical expression, and then re-run your test.

I went from 1200ms for the tag version to 175ms for this script version.

start = getTickCount();
result = 0;
for (i=1; i lte 1000000; i=i+1)
{
result=result+i;
}
writeoutput(”#result#Execution Time: #getTickCount() - start#ms”);

http://tinyurl.com/yen594