Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!vtserf!cohill From: cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Smalltalk performance Message-ID: <519@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> Date: 25 Oct 90 18:22:29 GMT References: <1990Oct19.220747.5536@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1461@media01.UUCP> Distribution: eunet,world Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA Lines: 21 We have found that performance can be affected substantially by the way that you define and use objects. We were working with a little database ourselves, and were initially pulling records out of the db and stuffing them into a set of nested arrays. What was passed was a single array, but within that array we had additional arrays or collections. Then the receiver unpacked those things. We only had a few fairly short strings in there, so it didn't seem like a big deal at the time. Response time was *slooooooow*. I went in and created a new class defined to hold these strings as instance variables; no more nested arrays. It went from 20-30 seconds to no visible delay--a big difference. To make a long story short, we found that little things make a big difference. Finding this sort of thing out takes, I think, a lot of experience with Smalltalk if you want to run really big stuff. -- | ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never | imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon |Andy Cohill |703/231-7855 cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU