23 aug 2005 kl. 10.14 skrev Michael Sparks: > Roland Hedberg wrote: > >> I was surprised to find that the performance was equal to what >> Twisted/XMLRPC did. Around 200 ms per set, not significantly less. >> > > That should tell you two things: > * Twisted/XMLRPC is as efficient as you can hand craft. (which is a > good use reason for using it).
I already gathered that much :-) > * That what you're measuring is overhead - and most likely of > setup. Not necessarily! If the number of client - server queries/responses are large enough the effect of the setup time should be negligible. Or making testes with different numbers of queries you should be able to deduce the setup time. > I'd measure the ping time between your two hosts. > > If your ping time is significantly lower - eg you're running on > localhost - I'd suggest you translate your code to C (and/or post > your code), I did the tests on localhost! And I did post the code! So, I made another test. I used a server I have already written in C and which I know quite well how fast it is. Using a python client I've written that talks to this server, it takes 0.8 s for the python client to start, connect and send 1000 queries. A C client is a bit faster but not a lot. This is more in the order of what I'd like to have. Hmm, not surprising this makes me suspect my python server implementation :-/ -- Roland -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
