Slow startup using ruby 1.9.2 vs 1.8.7

534 views
Skip to first unread message

Colin Law

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 7:30:17 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
There has been an ongoing thread [1] on the RoR talk list about
startup time using Rails 3 with Ruby 1.9.2. Do not be confused by the
subject of the thread, which mentions 1.9.1, it has moved on to 1.9.2.
The gist is that on Ubuntu (and possibly Macs) the startup time when
using 1.9.2 can be very much greater then 1.8.7, even with a minimal
app. This applies to running tests, migrations, server startup and so
on.

Can anyone here throw any light on this?

Thanks in advance

Colin

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/f3a7e26f8ef528fe

Ken Collins

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 8:30:41 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com

I somewhat mentioned this [1] when I was running ActiveRecord tests under 1.9.2 vs 1.8.7. Someone else mentioned there was a bug fix [2] which I can see is applied to both 3-0-stable/2-3-stable. Even though after this, I still found 1.9.2 to be way slower. I never did the legwork to find out if it was startup time or otherwise.

I just tested a project of mine on rails 3.0.3 under the latest 1.9.2 and 1.8.7 and I can confirm your results from the other thread. I can see boot times and tests taking twice as long under 1.9.2 vs 1.8.7. I too would love to see more investigation and a resolution to this.

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/fb4bbf2cc314d51e
[2] https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/5410


- Ken

Stephen

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 10:06:30 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
5410 should be fixed.. 

1.9.2 has this new setup where you can implement a function "responds_to_missing" to deal with responds_to for functions that are handled by method_missing.

ActiveRecord was removing all the default methods on the AssociationProxy object that didn't match a regular expression - so it was also removing the default implementation of responds_to_misisng.   However, 1.9.2. would still attempt to call responds_to_missing and that was being passed on to method_missing. 

In the case of 5140, the extra call to method_missing on the AssocaitionCollection didn't match any of the functions it normally handles so it would end up just calling "super".   AssociationProxy, by design, would load the entire collection from the database and then pass the method on to the actual instantiated collection.

So If you did @author.books.size

.size should have been handled by the AssociationCollection and just generated the select count(*) but before that could happen, method_misisng on AssocationProxy would get trigged - causing  the entire collection to load before it would then do the second correct query and return the size of the collection.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.


Colin Law

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 10:22:47 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
On 10 January 2011 15:06, Stephen <sblac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 5410 should be fixed..

Do you believe that may be the cause of the slow startup using 1.9.2?
I believe that Ken Collins said that it made little difference for
him.

Colin

Ken Collins

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 10:34:51 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com

Agreed!

Please do not let my aside on 5410 distract the issue. 1.9.2 is still slow!


- Ken

Lori Kingman

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 10:37:03 AM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
SEEKING A GREAT WEB QA Engineer!
Please let me know if you would be interested in speaking!

Ken Collins wrote:


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.

  

-- 
Lori Kingman
Pencom Systems Incorporated
1375 Broadway, 6th Floor
New York, NY  10018
646-300-8949 - Ph
732-239-8829 - Cell
lo...@pencom.com
www.pencom.com

Yehuda Katz

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 12:55:21 PM1/10/11
to rubyonrails-core
There are things that the C require code does in 1.9 that slow things down. One such example is re-checking $LOAD_PATH to make sure it is all expanded on every require. This is something that should be addressed by ruby-core. I'll open a ticket on redmine if there isn't one already.

Yehuda Katz
Architect | Strobe
(ph) 718.877.1325


hemant

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 2:12:43 PM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
ko1 was looking for a sample app to reproduce the problem,

http://osdir.com/ml/ruby-talk/2010-12/msg00350.html

--
Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.

http://gnufied.org

Stephen

unread,
Jan 10, 2011, 3:31:24 PM1/10/11
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
That bug was specific to  certain situations, namely calling methods on named scopes or association proxies.  There are certainly other fish to fry, I just wanted to address that one specific case.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages