Comments on: Memory usage comparison: Rails 1.2.6 vs 2.0.2 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/ Ecchi nanowa ikenai to omoimasu Sat, 17 May 2008 06:57:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: RX-7乗りの適当な日々 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7968 RX-7乗りの適当な日々 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:54:47 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7968 <strong>[IT] Rails 1.2.6 と 2.0.2 のパフォーマンス比較...</strong> 先日のエントリ「RedmineでのRailsパフォーマンス比較(1.2.6 vs 2.0.2)」(d:id:rx7:20080221:p1)に続いて、Ruby on Railsのパフォーマンスに関する話題を1つ。 他のサイトでも、Rails2.0系と1.2系のパフォー... [IT] Rails 1.2.6 と 2.0.2 のパフォーマンス比較…

先日のエントリ「RedmineでのRailsパフォーマンス比較(1.2.6 vs 2.0.2)」(d:id:rx7:20080221:p1)に続いて、Ruby on Railsのパフォーマンスに関する話題を1つ。 他のサイトでも、Rails2.0系と1.2系のパフォー…

]]> By: Crónica de una vida - Rendimiento de Rails 2.0 y el futuro Rails 2.1 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7949 Crónica de una vida - Rendimiento de Rails 2.0 y el futuro Rails 2.1 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:45:36 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7949 [...] comparativa demostrando que Rails 2.0 es entre un 30 y 50% más rápido que Rails 1.2.X. Además otro estudio muestra que consume menos memoria que la versión [...] […] comparativa demostrando que Rails 2.0 es entre un 30 y 50% más rápido que Rails 1.2.X. Además otro estudio muestra que consume menos memoria que la versión […]

]]> By: Pete Cockerell http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7943 Pete Cockerell Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:34:36 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7943 Hmmp! Happened to me too. Oh well. After you paste the (complete) URL into the URL field on your browser, replace the "×" in 300×200 with a proper lower case x character. (Or hit Enter to see it converted to %D7 by the browser [firefox, anyway] and replace that with a lower-case x). Hmmp! Happened to me too. Oh well. After you paste the (complete) URL into the URL field on your browser, replace the “×” in 300×200 with a proper lower case x character. (Or hit Enter to see it converted to %D7 by the browser [firefox, anyway] and replace that with a lower-case x).

]]> By: Pete Cockerell http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7941 Pete Cockerell Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:29:31 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7941 Somehow your "x" in the size got converted to a "times" character. Try: http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=300x200&chd=t:28.1|20.9|14.7|8.1|7.8|2.1&chco=4d89f9,c6d9fd&chdl=Rails%201.2.6|Rails%202.0 Somehow your “x” in the size got converted to a “times” character. Try:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=300×200&chd=t:28.1|20.9|14.7|8.1|7.8|2.1&chco=4d89f9,c6d9fd&chdl=Rails%201.2.6|Rails%202.0

]]> By: roScripts - Webmaster resources and websites http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7940 roScripts - Webmaster resources and websites Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:15:04 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7940 <strong>Memory usage comparison: Rails 1.2.6 vs 2.0.2...</strong> Memory usage comparison: Rails 1.2.6 vs 2.0.2... Memory usage comparison: Rails 1.2.6 vs 2.0.2…

Memory usage comparison: Rails 1.2.6 vs 2.0.2…

]]> By: Colin Curtin http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7934 Colin Curtin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:58:59 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7934 Sorry for spamming, there's the google chart link for what you want as a graph. (I couldn't make an img tag) Sorry for spamming, there’s the google chart link for what you want as a graph. (I couldn’t make an img tag)

]]> By: Colin Curtin http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7933 Colin Curtin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:57:54 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7933 http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=300x200&chd=t:28.1|20.9|14.7|8.1|7.8|2.1&chco=4d89f9,c6d9fd&chdl=Rails%201.2.6|Rails%202.0 http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=300×200&chd=t:28.1|20.9|14.7|8.1|7.8|2.1&chco=4d89f9,c6d9fd&chdl=Rails%201.2.6|Rails%202.0

]]> By: Gubatron http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7929 Gubatron Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:53:48 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7929 It'd be cool if you could just put graphics for those of us in a hurry, I guess I'll come back later. It’d be cool if you could just put graphics for those of us in a hurry, I guess I’ll come back later.

]]> By: Eric Allam http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7928 Eric Allam Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:14:38 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/19/memory-usage-comparison-rails-126-vs-202/#comment-7928 Awesome! Thanks for taking my "suggestion" and making a kickass post out of it. Awesome! Thanks for taking my “suggestion” and making a kickass post out of it.

]]>