x

[meta] Performance of ASK (esp. karma history)

I just got a quick question here about your perceived performance of ASK in regard to load times.

I am running IE 8 on a WIN 7 64 bit machine and notice some parts of ASK performing quite slowly.

The major area that is slow for me is the karma history. This is slow, especially so for people with high karma - I'm looking at you Matt! ;o). It seems that at around 3000 rep. the graph for karma builds really slow and gets worse as you get higher (as of 2010-09-16 it takes 15 seconds to load Matt's history @ rep. of 16471).

I imagine this problem is twofold - first to get the data, second to render it.

Does anyone else see this happening?

If so, maybe we can do some database performance tuning for OSQA (is it SQL Server?), obviously if it is the renderer someone other than myself would need to take a look.
more ▼

asked Sep 16, 2010 at 04:52 AM in Default

WilliamD gravatar image

WilliamD
25.9k 17 19 41

I think the database engine has been mentioned before and, although to my knowledge it hasnt been confirmed, its an open source site so we suspect its an open source solution in the db department too
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:09 AM Fatherjack ♦♦
Postgres is the db engine which competes in the enterprise department, even though it is an open source project, but see my answer to see the real problem.
Sep 16, 2010 at 07:41 AM hernani
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

5 answers: sort voted first

The problem is known, and is related with the script that renders the graph, which btw, is [flot][1]. Even in IE8 you can get better times if you toggle compatibility view. Please see here http://jira.osqa.net/browse/OSQA-350.

[1]: http://code.google.com/p/flot/
more ▼

answered Sep 16, 2010 at 07:39 AM

hernani gravatar image

hernani
201 1 1 3

Thanks for the info!
Sep 16, 2010 at 07:54 AM WilliamD
Since the source code on this site gets updated sometimes, it takes to occasionally hit Ctrl+F5 to clear stale cache. From what I see, performance of karma hitory is affected only by the graph. One of the problems which can be seen with the naked eye is the scaling of the dots. Usually, the graphs (probably not this one though) are internally implemented to change the scale once the period of time increases. For example, to plot one month worth of data, the graph chooses every point of its respective source. To plot 1 year worth of data, the graph auto-averages (or simply disregards) daily points and uses weekly data and smoothes the line. Since the graph belongs to Google, it is not fair to compare IE and Chrome performance, because the code is specifically written to slow down IE by faking unsupported canvas with javascript emulation. To me it does not matter, I will never have Chrome anywhere near my computers (I like my privacy and Chrome is a bit too invasive for me to tolerate). The first time I started using Microsoft't .NET chart, which is free, clean, includes a bunch of financials, has just as small footprint as Dundas (has rounded corners too), I need nothing else :)
Sep 16, 2010 at 11:01 AM Oleg
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Just loaded Matt's karma history - under 2 seconds. Chrome on XP.
more ▼

answered Sep 16, 2010 at 04:58 AM

ThomasRushton gravatar image

ThomasRushton ♦
34.2k 18 20 44

for me also it loaded under 1 Second on Chrome on XP
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:03 AM Cyborg
So maybe it is just me. I'll try it on another machine a little later.
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:05 AM WilliamD
I tested it on IE8, it took over 20 Sec. May be the problem with IE7?
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:06 AM Cyborg
If I download the karma history page for Matt we are talking about 75Kb, so it can't really be data. It must be the rendering of the graph that just sucks in IE8 then
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:11 AM WilliamD
So basically IE8/IEn = FAIL!
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:35 AM WilliamD
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

Is your machine slow? IE took about 5 secs on my machine at work...

However, Chrome was instant and Firefox was near-instant (maybe 0.25 -> 0.5 secs).

I think the issue here maybe two fold:

  1. The graph seems to have a lot of data points - really, for that style of graph, I think a weekly summary would give a reasonable indication. I mean, who's going to be doing any integration analysis on it?
  2. The javascript engine in IE sucks. Badly. Apparently IE9's JS engine is supposed to suck less. How much less remains to be seen, I guess.
more ▼

answered Sep 16, 2010 at 05:45 AM

Matt Whitfield gravatar image

Matt Whitfield ♦♦
29.5k 61 65 87

My machine is not too slow. I reckon it is slowed down via an on-access virus scanner (corporate IT security policy!).

I agree on the granularity. If you check Stackoverflow, they have the option of filtering too - maybe something to suggest here?
Sep 16, 2010 at 05:50 AM WilliamD
I must admit my experience with most browsing is much better on Chrome than IE. My fellow devs swear by FF, but I prefer Chrome.
Sep 16, 2010 at 06:02 AM Kev Riley ♦♦
FF and Chrome load instantly on my machine too but IE sucks on my machine. Dont know why.
Sep 16, 2010 at 06:05 AM DaniSQL
How about having a drill down reports for karma history?
Sep 16, 2010 at 06:11 AM Cyborg
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
It does seem to take a few seconds to load stuff, but the performance isn't too bad.
more ▼

answered Sep 16, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Grant Fritchey gravatar image

Grant Fritchey ♦♦
103k 19 21 74

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.

Topics:

x154

asked: Sep 16, 2010 at 04:52 AM

Seen: 1096 times

Last Updated: Sep 16, 2010 at 04:52 AM