From 8318b9940666d1599ef49b5433ae73aff085dc94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bill Erickson Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:57:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] speed comparison Signed-off-by: Bill Erickson --- eg2012_tpac.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/eg2012_tpac.txt b/eg2012_tpac.txt index f63ba2bc9..0eae30805 100644 --- a/eg2012_tpac.txt +++ b/eg2012_tpac.txt @@ -43,6 +43,24 @@ Why TPAC? * Reduced client resources (RAM/CPU) requirements * JavaScript/AJAX is still an option when needed (autosuggest, added content, staff client integration) +TPAC vs JSPAC Crude Speed Comparison +------------------------------------ + + * Very professional test methodology + ** Searched for "concerto" and then reloaded the page 3 times each + ** Timing data collected from Chrome's Developer Tools Network pane + ** Average times are for loading all page elements + ** Test server was 350 miles away. + * JSPAC + ** `6.92` seconds. + ** `494 KB` transferred + * TPAC + ** `2.49` seconds. + ** `118 KB` transferred + * TPAC with AutoSuggest enabled (i.e. Dojo) after initially caching Dojo + ** `2.84` seconds. + ** `130 KB` transferred + Template Toolkit (TT) Syntax ---------------------------- -- 2.11.0