hi, I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it as front applications only parts the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... and in real time systems also it wont be used.... now the concern is i have to implement a project management web based application and we have to resolve the issue what technology to use. So is it so that RoR is slow in performance(relatively) and to boost it to a level better hardware is needed. any suggestions Thanks in advance warm regards gaurav v bagga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060721/faa2ea90/attachment.html
On 7/20/06, gaurav bagga <gaurav.v.bagga@gmail.com> wrote:> hi, > > I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... > > he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it as > front applications only parts > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > and in real time systems also it wont be used.... > > now the concern is i have to implement a project management web based > application and we have to > resolve the issue what technology to use. > > So is it so that RoR is slow in performance(relatively) and to boost it to > a level better hardware is needed. >In most cases, no.> any suggestionsGet on with creating your application and don''t waste time getting into the whole which language is faster debate. For the average web app, the difference in speed between different platforms is simply not going to be noticable enough by your users to make it a major deciding factor in which platform to use. Much more important is how productive you will be, what features you need, etc.. There are always ways to increase performance if you need to do so.
I''ve never heard of J2EE being used as the standard for performance! Usually it''s the opposite. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Google and Amazon have concernes about the performance of RoR because they are two of the most visited websites in the world. You won''t even notice a difference. -Nathan On 21/07/06, gaurav bagga <gaurav.v.bagga@gmail.com> wrote:> hi, > > I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... > > he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it as > front applications only parts > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > and in real time systems also it wont be used.... > > now the concern is i have to implement a project management web based > application and we have to > resolve the issue what technology to use. > > So is it so that RoR is slow in performance(relatively) and to boost it to > a level better hardware is needed. > > any suggestions > > Thanks in advance > > warm regards > gaurav v bagga > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >
Just carry on with ROR developement.You won''t have any problem. Goodluck Dibya On 7/21/06, njmacinnes@gmail.com <njmacinnes@gmail.com> wrote:> > Google and Amazon have concernes about the performance of RoR because > they are two of the most visited websites in the world. You won''t even > notice a difference. > -Nathan > > On 21/07/06, gaurav bagga <gaurav.v.bagga@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi, > > > > I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... > > > > he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it > as > > front applications only parts > > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > > and in real time systems also it wont be used.... > > > > now the concern is i have to implement a project management web based > > application and we have to > > resolve the issue what technology to use. > > > > So is it so that RoR is slow in performance(relatively) and to boost it > to > > a level better hardware is needed. > > > > any suggestions > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > warm regards > > gaurav v bagga > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060721/700c8f85/attachment.html
On 7/21/06, gaurav bagga <gaurav.v.bagga@gmail.com> wrote:> I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others....Maybe. But you should also consider that in order to run your application a few seconds faster, you may wind up taking several extra weeks or months to implement it since J2EE is nowhere near as productive as Rails.> he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it as > front applications only parts > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > and in real time systems also it wont be used....Google and Amazon are totally different beasts from normal web sites. The kind of things they need to worry about are probably things that you would never encounter in ''normal'' use. Making your decision based on this is a bit like saying that because the USA went to the moon, you are going to use a rocket to climb Mount Everest. Totally not necessary. -- G.
interesting replies i appreciate efforts and thank u all for ur comments hope i can use ur replies to convience people here with me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060721/8fd12d38/attachment.html
gaurav bagga wrote:> hi, > > I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... > > he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it > as front applications only parts > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > and in real time systems also it wont be used.... > > now the concern is i have to implement a project management web based > application and we have to > resolve the issue what technology to use. > > So is it so that RoR is slow in performance(relatively) and to boost > it to a level better hardware is needed.Just throwing my 2c in here like everyone else. Performance is relative. How much performance do you really need? An average Rails page on my server (a rather simple single-CPU XEON) stats out to about 60-70 reqs/second maximum against that particular server. That means I could handle up to 3-4000 page views per minute, no sweat. By distributing load, I can achieve much better numbers. The question is whether you wish to pay for simple commodity hardware, or pay for unhappy developers taking twice as long to create the application. It really is as simple as that. And also - who says J2EE is faster? I believe that''s as much hype as anything. Regards, Henning Kilset Rails Foundry http://railsfoundry.com/
On 7/21/06, Henning Kilset <henning@railsfoundry.com> wrote:> And also - who says J2EE is faster? I believe that''s as much hype as > anything.Ruby, the language, is dog slow, while Java runs about as fast a s possible. Also, Active Record is somewhat primitive, lacking support for prepared statements, for instance. This means your app and database are spending a fair amount of resources on parsing and planning the same queries repeatedly. Java is superior in other regards as well, for instance when it comes to distributed transaction support and messaging. That said, I generally prefer rails for anything that doesn''t require massive throughput or distributed transactions.. Isak
Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not experience bad performance. As for repeated repeated queries, one word - caching. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not experience bad performance. As for repeated read queries, one word - caching. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 7/22/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote:> Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not > experience bad performance.There are plenty of benchmarks out there, try google. Ruby generally ranks close to the bottom, often beat by an order of magnitude. People often overrate execution speed, though. If your application isn''t CPU bound and computationally expensive, language speed just isn''t an issue.>> Also, Active Record is somewhat primitive, lacking support for >> prepared statements, for instance. This means your app and database >> are spending a fair amount of resources on parsing and planning the >> same queries repeatedly.> As for repeated repeated queries, one word - caching.Should perhaps have written ''similar queries'' instead of ''same'', but think I wrote enough to convey the gist on prepared statements. What data you query for may be different, but the parsed query and its execution plan are cached, improving performance a lot when you do hit the db. Isak
Isak Hansen wrote:> On 7/22/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not >> experience bad performance. > > There are plenty of benchmarks out there, try google. Ruby generally > ranks close to the bottom, often beat by an order of magnitude.I always doubted on the obectivity of those banchmarks, how can you compare two languages which are so far one from the other, what I means is that benchmarking require the two applications to be comparable, right ? How can you take a java application and a Ruby application and say: they are the same I will now compare them ? Here is a story from my own experience: I wrote a little java application some times ago to parse comments from the source files of a C++ application and generate a html documentation (I know it already exists by I needed a very specific thing), later I then discovered Ruby and rewrote the application as a Ruby script. The comparaisons in speed between both gave Ruby as a clear winner in my case, all I want to say here is that banchmarks depends clearly on the way applications are coded, or what they do and how they do it (it is event worse if you use very specific language optimization in one application but not in the other), etc... What I know is that I love to code in Ruby but in the other side I always hated java and hopefully will never to write any line of it ^^ Productivity is so high when coding in Ruby compared to any other language I worked with, and I don''t only speak about Rails, even in pure Ruby.> > People often overrate execution speed, though. If your application > isn''t CPU bound and computationally expensive, language speed just > isn''t an issue. > > >>> Also, Active Record is somewhat primitive, lacking support for >>> prepared statements, for instance. This means your app and database >>> are spending a fair amount of resources on parsing and planning the >>> same queries repeatedly. > >> As for repeated repeated queries, one word - caching. > > Should perhaps have written ''similar queries'' instead of ''same'', but > think I wrote enough to convey the gist on prepared statements. > > What data you query for may be different, but the parsed query and its > execution plan are cached, improving performance a lot when you do hit > the db. > > > Isak-- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Isak Hansen wrote:> On 7/22/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not >> experience bad performance. > > There are plenty of benchmarks out there, try google. Ruby generally > ranks close to the bottom, often beat by an order of magnitude. > > People often overrate execution speed, though. If your application > isn''t CPU bound and computationally expensive, language speed just > isn''t an issue.Here''s PHP vs. Ruby: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=php Ruby is less than 5% slower than PHP, on average. And Ruby does a lot better on memory use. Ruby vs. Perl is just slightly worse: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=perl Going through the scripting language comparisons, it appears Ruby is no less than about 3-8% worse in CPU use than the rest. In the range, it makes little difference in my mind. And as the tests show, if you really need much better performance, you''ll need to use compiled languages. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
How about support for prepared statements ? On 7/23/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote:> Isak Hansen wrote: > > On 7/22/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog slow"? I''ve not > >> experience bad performance. > > > > There are plenty of benchmarks out there, try google. Ruby generally > > ranks close to the bottom, often beat by an order of magnitude. > > > > People often overrate execution speed, though. If your application > > isn''t CPU bound and computationally expensive, language speed just > > isn''t an issue. > > Here''s PHP vs. Ruby: > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=php > > Ruby is less than 5% slower than PHP, on average. And Ruby does a lot > better on memory use. > > Ruby vs. Perl is just slightly worse: > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=perl > > Going through the scripting language comparisons, it appears Ruby is no > less than about 3-8% worse in CPU use than the rest. In the range, it > makes little difference in my mind. And as the tests show, if you really > need much better performance, you''ll need to use compiled languages. > > Joe > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in "Things do not happen. Things are made to happen." - JFK
Why bother? The whole point of ActiveRecord is to insulate the
programmer from having to write SQL in most (now almost all) cases.
Prepared Statements could be implemented as an optimization of how AR
connects with the database, but have you seen any apps that are are
not scaling because AR is speaking plain SQL?
Prepared Statements aren''t even necessarily faster.
http://www.jguru.com/faq/view.jsp?EID=720
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Pratik wrote:
> How about support for prepared statements ?
>
> On 7/23/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Isak Hansen wrote:
>> > On 7/22/06, Joe <joe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Is there any data to backup the claim that Ruby is "dog
slow"?
>> I''ve not
>> >> experience bad performance.
>> >
>> > There are plenty of benchmarks out there, try google. Ruby
>> generally
>> > ranks close to the bottom, often beat by an order of magnitude.
>> >
>> > People often overrate execution speed, though. If your application
>> > isn''t CPU bound and computationally expensive, language
speed just
>> > isn''t an issue.
>>
>> Here''s PHP vs. Ruby:
>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?
>> test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=php
>>
>> Ruby is less than 5% slower than PHP, on average. And Ruby does a lot
>> better on memory use.
>>
>> Ruby vs. Perl is just slightly worse:
>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?
>> test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=perl
>>
>> Going through the scripting language comparisons, it appears Ruby
>> is no
>> less than about 3-8% worse in CPU use than the rest. In the range, it
>> makes little difference in my mind. And as the tests show, if you
>> really
>> need much better performance, you''ll need to use compiled
languages.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails mailing list
>> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>>
>
>
> --
> rm -rf / 2>/dev/null - http://null.in
>
> "Things do not happen. Things are made to happen." - JFK
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On Jul 22, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Dan Kohn wrote:> Why bother? The whole point of ActiveRecord is to insulate the > programmer from having to write SQL in most (now almost all) > cases. Prepared Statements could be implemented as an optimization > of how AR connects with the database, but have you seen any apps > that are are not scaling because AR is speaking plain SQL? > > Prepared Statements aren''t even necessarily faster. > http://www.jguru.com/faq/view.jsp?EID=720That sounds like a Java driver issue to me. Back in 1998, I was architect on a large scale Perl project during Web 1.0. We converted the application from fully formed SQL to placeholders and the difference in performance was dramatic, though mostly in terms of DB machine utilization, not so much application performance via the browser. That said, we were able to scale the application far higher with prepared statements than we could have without. -- -- Tom Mornini
Isak Hansen wrote:> On 7/21/06, Henning Kilset <henning@railsfoundry.com> wrote: > >> And also - who says J2EE is faster? I believe that''s as much hype as >> anything. > > Ruby, the language, is dog slow, while Java runs about as fast a s > possible. >OK - and the point is? I said you had to decide between raw performance of the language itself, and productivity of your developers. Again - what would you prefer? Buying more (commodity, cheap) hardware - or spending the money on increased development time and complexity management?> Also, Active Record is somewhat primitive, lacking support for > prepared statements, for instance. This means your app and database > are spending a fair amount of resources on parsing and planning the > same queries repeatedly. >True. Prepared statement support is lacking - but there is a reason. The inherent dynamic nature of Active Record makes prepared statements a bit of a no-go. However, there are ways to alleviate this. With Oracle, for instance, you can set up the database to "semi-prepare" statements for you that have the same general syntax (select firstname, lastname from people where id = "23" automagically becomes select firstname, lastname from people where id = :1).> Java is superior in other regards as well, for instance when it comes > to distributed transaction support and messaging. >Yes. But the question is - do you really need it, or can it be achieved via simple scale-out with commodity hardware? If not - sure - go with Java. Java has its place in the world, there is no doubt about that. So does .NET, if you''re so inclined. *DISTRIBUTED* transaction processing to me sounds like bad application design. It can just as easily be achieved via database loading-tables and triggers/stored procedures. Database transaction handling belongs in the database, not in the application/web layer.> > That said, I generally prefer rails for anything that doesn''t require > massive throughput or distributed transactions..Then, after all, I believe we are on the same page (although I might lean a bit more towards Rails even in performance-intensive cases). Performance can be achieved in numerous ways. Load-balancing, caching (rails internal, assisted via memcached, or simply via massive amounts of RAM on the db/web servers). Regards, Henning Kilset
As far as I''m aware, neither Google nor Amazon use J2EE for their public-facing websites. At that level you roll your own solution. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
gaurav bagga wrote:> I recently attended one of the ruby meetings that we have in my city. > There one of the speaker said that google,amazon .. are working on RoR > but still the performance of RoR is not at par with J2EE others.... > > he meant that though google,amazon working o it they will not bring it > as > front applications only parts > the reason ruby is slow in comparison to other languages.... > and in real time systems also it wont be used....Well, you won''t be running a Google or Amazon so no worries. BTW Amazon uses a lot of Perl last I heard. In fact, I don''t recall Java being a big part of the framework at Amazon. It was/is a Perl/Mason shop for the most part. Ruby is plenty fast enough for 90% of the sites out there. Hardware is cheap, programmer''s salaries are not. The vast majority of us are not running Googles, Yahoos, Amazons, eBays, etc. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Michael Schuerig
2006-Jul-24 20:29 UTC
[Rails] Performance of Ruby/Rails (was: Struts vs RoR)
On Monday 24 July 2006 18:19, Mark Hall wrote:> Ruby is plenty fast enough for 90% of the sites out there. ?Hardware > is cheap, programmer''s salaries are not. ?The vast majority of us are > not running Googles, Yahoos, Amazons, eBays, etc.As far as I can tell, the comments so far have been focussed on throughput. This is obviously important for public-facing web apps. For inhouse applications, though, it is not much of a concern. There, it counts for more to achieve short response times. I''d be interested what others'' experiences are in this regard. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael@schuerig.de http://www.schuerig.de/michael/