3 ms·
The benchmark was done using REE. Out of curiousity, I tried it with MRI 1.8.7, MRI 1.9.2, and REE 1.8.7. Results are best out of three: us
by danielparks 15y ago
The benchmark was done using REE. Out of curiousity, I tried it with MRI 1.8.7, MRI 1.9.2, and REE 1.8.7. Results are best out of three:
user system total real
rails3-1.9.2 2.240000 0.200000 2.440000 ( 3.127072)
rails2-ree 2.530000 0.290000 2.820000 ( 3.578471)
rails2-1.8.7 2.920000 0.210000 3.130000 ( 3.876215)
rails3-ree 3.140000 0.250000 3.390000 ( 4.111465)
rails3-1.8.7 3.560000 0.220000 3.780000 ( 4.505166)
Of course, the author was looking into a specific problem — this doesn't mean that Rails 3 on MRI 1.9.2 is faster than Rails 3 on REE.
Run on an iMac9,1 with a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. uname -a:
Darwin Roy.local 10.7.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.7.0: Sat Jan 29 15:17:16 PST 2011; root:xnu-1504.9.37~1/RELEASE_I386 i386
I disabled spotlight, but who knows what other processes might have spawned in the middle of the benchmark. Your mileage may vary.
- joevandyk 15y ago1.9.2 has some slow startup problems with rails 3 -- I don't believe your benchmark measures startup time.
- joevandyk 15y agoNot sure why this was downvoted. In 1.9.2 (p180 and head), my rails 3 application starts in 26 seconds. With REE 1.8.7, it starts in 8 seconds or so.
- danielparks 15y agoIt's aimed at an issue with ActiveRecord. Like I said, it doesn't mean that Rails 3 on MRI 1.9.2 is faster than Rails 3 on REE. Also, just to be clear, I'm not the author of the linked post or the benchmark.