What many people say is they can't tell you what the performance problem is without seeing and understanding your code.
I think that's like handing a hungry person a fish, which only solves the immediate problem.
I would rather teach the hungry person to fish, thus solving the long-term problem.
I want you to know how to find the performance problem. This answer This answer shows you how to do it.
In a nut-shell, it is this: You've got some performance problem, and it is causing a big slowdown like (pick a number) 4 times. That means if it takes 60 seconds, 45 of those seconds are spent executing (or waiting for) the performance problem. That means if you randomly pause it under a debugger, you have a 75% chance of catching it in the act and seeing exactly what the problem is. Do this 8 times, and 6 of those times, on average, it will point out to you exactly what the problem is.
That's far more effective than fiddling with profiler measurements or trying to be a good guesser, or asking other people to.
What many people say is they can't tell you what the performance problem is without seeing and understanding your code.
I think that's like handing a hungry person a fish, which only solves the immediate problem.
I would rather teach the hungry person to fish, thus solving the long-term problem.
I want you to know how to find the performance problem. This answer shows you how to do it.
In a nut-shell, it is this: You've got some performance problem, and it is causing a big slowdown like (pick a number) 4 times. That means if it takes 60 seconds, 45 of those seconds are spent executing (or waiting for) the performance problem. That means if you randomly pause it under a debugger, you have a 75% chance of catching it in the act and seeing exactly what the problem is. Do this 8 times, and 6 of those times, on average, it will point out to you exactly what the problem is.
That's far more effective than fiddling with profiler measurements or trying to be a good guesser, or asking other people to.
What many people say is they can't tell you what the performance problem is without seeing and understanding your code.
I think that's like handing a hungry person a fish, which only solves the immediate problem.
I would rather teach the hungry person to fish, thus solving the long-term problem.
I want you to know how to find the performance problem. This answer shows you how to do it.
In a nut-shell, it is this: You've got some performance problem, and it is causing a big slowdown like (pick a number) 4 times. That means if it takes 60 seconds, 45 of those seconds are spent executing (or waiting for) the performance problem. That means if you randomly pause it under a debugger, you have a 75% chance of catching it in the act and seeing exactly what the problem is. Do this 8 times, and 6 of those times, on average, it will point out to you exactly what the problem is.
That's far more effective than fiddling with profiler measurements or trying to be a good guesser, or asking other people to.
What many people say is they can't tell you what the performance problem is without seeing and understanding your code.
I think that's like handing a hungry person a fish, which only solves the immediate problem.
I would rather teach the hungry person to fish, thus solving the long-term problem.
I want you to know how to find the performance problem. This answer shows you how to do it.
In a nut-shell, it is this: You've got some performance problem, and it is causing a big slowdown like (pick a number) 4 times. That means if it takes 60 seconds, 45 of those seconds are spent executing (or waiting for) the performance problem. That means if you randomly pause it under a debugger, you have a 75% chance of catching it in the act and seeing exactly what the problem is. Do this 8 times, and 6 of those times, on average, it will point out to you exactly what the problem is.
That's far more effective than fiddling with profiler measurements or trying to be a good guesser, or asking other people to.