|[Validation] Deterioration of performance with Eclipse Galileo due to Tracing [message #431689]
||Tue, 21 July 2009 16:10
| Mario Winterer
Registered: July 2009
I've currently moved from eclipse 3.4 to eclipse 3.5 and I'm
experiencing a huge performance penalty when using (live) validation.
Especially when doing lots of modifications in one single EMF
transaction, the live validation that is performed afterwards takes
about 99% of the entire operation runtime.
+ eclipse 3.4: about 10 seconds
+ eclipse 3.5: about 300 seconds
Performance analysis show that almost all runtime is spent on testing if
debugging is enabled (Tracing.shouldTrace invokes Plugin.isDebugging()).
While in eclipse 3.4, Plugin.isDebugging() just returned a boolean field
value, in eclipse 3.5 the debug options are queried which causes
runtime-consuming security checks (in fact, almost all time is spent in
See also bug 258705, which caused the modification of
Now I'm not sure if this issue should be solved at platform level or at
EMF Validation API level. The latter seems to be easier to be done by
simply caching the debug option...
(I'll post some profiling data later)
|Re: [Validation] Deterioration of performance with Eclipse Galileo due to Tracing [message #431703 is a reply to message #431700]
||Wed, 22 July 2009 10:51
| Boris Gruschko
Registered: July 2009
3 years ago wasn't 3.5M6 and the calls didn't take that long.
I'll open a bug for platform and relate it to 162347.
"Eike Stepper" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> You might be interested it this bugzilla I filed 3 years ago:
> Please consider voting for it! ;-)
> Boris Gruschko schrieb:
>> Hi Mario,
>> thanks for the detailed bug report.
>> It would probably be the most simple thing, to just cache the
>> isDebugging value. However the problem is not the caching itself, but
>> keeping cache's value coherent with the reality.
>> As the debugging/tracing option is relevant to the developers only,
>> I'd be tempted to insert this cache first and then wait for the
>> platform to fix the underlying issue.
>> Could you please open a bug on the validation component, I'll try to
>> provide a fix today afternoon and schedule followups with platform.
>> Thanks again for the detailed and helpful analysis,
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.02145 seconds