openwebwork-devel — WeBWorK development discussion

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] Fwd: timing data on WW2.1 (HEAD as of 10.16.2004)

[John J. <jj...@as...>]

This is interesting data.  I have a few thoughts/questions.

Does anyone have an explanation as to why sql_single would beat sql?  
Naively I would expect it to always be the other way around (or end up 
in ties).  More information in the database table should not end up 
being faster.

So, is there a difference in the indexing of information?

Also, were actions performed multiple times in each case to see if 
variations in system load were having an impact?

Finally, it would be good to test sql_single with a few thousand 
students in it (and a dozen problem sets for each).  The class you are 
timing against can be normal sized, but imagine a large site or one 
which has not removed information from their database for a few 
semesters.  With sql_single, this adds to the size of the database 
tables.  If the tables are not indexed optimally, it may not show itself 
until there is a huge amount of data in the database, but can then 
really slow down.

John


Sam Hathaway wrote:

> Here is some timing data from Mike:
>
>> All of this data was taken on the development machine:  
>> devel.webwork.rochester.edu
>>
>> The quick summary is:
>>
>>
>> Summary:  Taken from data attached. Time is in seconds and is real 
>> time, not CPU time,
>>  so it is only useful for long processes.  "diff = " measures the 
>> time from when the ContentGenerator
>> module is called to the time it returns.
>>
>> Adding  class list of 160 students:
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:19:56 2004] 96404 1097936396 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/users/] [diff = 3.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:36:13 2004] 96406 1097937373 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/users/] [diff = 6.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:20:07 2004] 96403 1097936407 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/users/] [diff = 3.000000 
>> sql_single]
>>
>>
>> Assign set 1 (12 problems) to 160 users:
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:50:11 2004] 96403 1097938211 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 154.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:47:11 2004] 96406 1097938031 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 70.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:51:38 2004] 96404 1097938298 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 
>> 61.000000 sql_single]
>>
>> Assign 160 users to sets 2, 3, and 4  (41 problems)  (using 
>> Instructor tools page)
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:50:11 2004] 96403 1097938211 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 154.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:47:11 2004] 96406 1097938031 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 70.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 10:51:38 2004] 96404 1097938298 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 
>> 61.000000 sql_single]
>>
>> Assign set 5 (7 problems) to 160 students from the instructor tools 
>> page:
>> [Sat Oct 16 14:57:39 2004] 96406 1097953059 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 89.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 14:54:57 2004] 96404 1097952897 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 136.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:17:46 2004] 96406 1097954266 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 65.000000 
>> sql_single]
>>
>>
>> score sets 0 to 5:
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:44:20 2004] 96406 1097955860 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 67.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:46:00 2004] 96406 1097955960 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 76.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:41:58 2004] 96403 1097955718 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 73.000000 
>> sql_single]
>>
>> view library (setDerivatives1, 30 problems displayMode=images)
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:50:43 2004] 96406 1097956243 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 13.000000 gdbm]
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:51:45 2004] 8926 1097956305 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 15.000000 sql]
>> [Sat Oct 16 15:52:19 2004] 8926 1097956339 - 
>> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 17.000000 
>> sql_single]
>>
>> ---- This last one is a bit puzzling.  Why is single_sql slower than 
>> sql?
>>
>> The other readings were all pretty short. It's clear that single_sql 
>> speeds up assigning problems.
>> It wonder why it doesn't do even better than that.  Why is the 
>> library display slow in single_sql?
>>
>> In general single_sql is at least as good as the competition so there 
>> are no deal stoppers.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Mike
>>
>>

[OpenWeBWorK-devel] Fwd: timing data on WW2.1 (HEAD as of 10.16.2004)

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

Here is some timing data from Mike:

> All of this data was taken on the development machine:  
> devel.webwork.rochester.edu
>
> The quick summary is:
>
>
> Summary:  Taken from data attached. Time is in seconds and is real 
> time, not CPU time,
>  so it is only useful for long processes.  "diff = " measures the time 
> from when the ContentGenerator
> module is called to the time it returns.
>
> Adding  class list of 160 students:
> [Sat Oct 16 10:19:56 2004] 96404 1097936396 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/users/] [diff = 3.000000 gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:36:13 2004] 96406 1097937373 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/users/] [diff = 6.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:20:07 2004] 96403 1097936407 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/users/] [diff = 3.000000 
> sql_single]
>
>
> Assign set 1 (12 problems) to 160 users:
> [Sat Oct 16 10:50:11 2004] 96403 1097938211 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 154.000000 
> gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:47:11 2004] 96406 1097938031 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 70.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:51:38 2004] 96404 1097938298 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 61.000000 
> sql_single]
>
> Assign 160 users to sets 2, 3, and 4  (41 problems)  (using Instructor 
> tools page)
> [Sat Oct 16 10:50:11 2004] 96403 1097938211 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 154.000000 
> gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:47:11 2004] 96406 1097938031 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 70.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 10:51:38 2004] 96404 1097938298 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/sets/1/users/] [diff = 61.000000 
> sql_single]
>
> Assign set 5 (7 problems) to 160 students from the instructor tools 
> page:
> [Sat Oct 16 14:57:39 2004] 96406 1097953059 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 89.000000 gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 14:54:57 2004] 96404 1097952897 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 136.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 15:17:46 2004] 96406 1097954266 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/assigner/] [diff = 65.000000 
> sql_single]
>
>
> score sets 0 to 5:
> [Sat Oct 16 15:44:20 2004] 96406 1097955860 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 67.000000 gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 15:46:00 2004] 96406 1097955960 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 76.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 15:41:58 2004] 96403 1097955718 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/scoring/] [diff = 73.000000 
> sql_single]
>
> view library (setDerivatives1, 30 problems displayMode=images)
> [Sat Oct 16 15:50:43 2004] 96406 1097956243 - 
> [/webwork2/test_gdbm/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 13.000000 gdbm]
> [Sat Oct 16 15:51:45 2004] 8926 1097956305 - 
> [/webwork2/test_sql/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 15.000000 sql]
> [Sat Oct 16 15:52:19 2004] 8926 1097956339 - 
> [/webwork2/test_single_sql/instructor/setmaker/] [diff = 17.000000 
> sql_single]
>
> ---- This last one is a bit puzzling.  Why is single_sql slower than 
> sql?
>
> The other readings were all pretty short. It's clear that single_sql 
> speeds up assigning problems.
> It wonder why it doesn't do even better than that.  Why is the library 
> display slow in single_sql?
>
> In general single_sql is at least as good as the competition so there 
> are no deal stoppers.
>
> Take care,
> Mike
>
>

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

On Oct 20, 2004, at 5:48 PM, John Jones wrote:

> Sam Hathaway wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2004, at 4:03 PM, John Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I scanning through the recent cvs change to SetMaker.pm, it looks 
>>> like there are places where whitespace was changed inside quoted 
>>> strings (which would be displayed in output).  Was this intentional? 
>>>  There didn't seem to be an conventions in the twiki reference about 
>>> this.
>>
>>
>> No, just me being careless. (On the other hand, whitespace in HTML 
>> output doesn't matter much, since browsers collapse it.) Can you 
>> point to specific places so I can correct them?
>> -sam
>
> The ones which first caught my attention are at the top:
>
> -use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '  My Problems  ';
> -use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '  Main Problems  ';
> +use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '	 My Problems	';
> +use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '	 Main Problems	';
>
>
> On the plus side, these are constants so that they will be used 
> consistently in the file.  I may adjust others if I happen on them.

Sorry about that. Fixing now...
-sam

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:17 PM, Davide P.Cervone wrote:

>> The ones which first caught my attention are at the top:
>>
>> -use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '  My Problems  ';
>> -use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '  Main Problems  ';
>> +use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '	 My Problems	';
>> +use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '	 Main Problems	';
>
> I noticed issues like this when you added tabs to the FileManager.pm 
> file as well.  It did not follow the conventions that you specified in 
> the indentation policy.  E.g.,
>
>         my $self                         = shift;
>         my $r                                    = $self->r;
>         my $authz                        = $r->authz;
>         my $user                         = $r->param('user');
>
> now was tabs to "align" the equal signs rather than spaces, as the 
> policy seems to suggest.

I've been using the "Entab" feature of my editor, which simply replaces 
runs of spaces with tabs. Then I have to go through and replace tabs 
with spaces for alignment. Looks like I didn't catch those. (Fixing 
now...)
-sam

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[Davide P.C. <dp...@un...>]

> The ones which first caught my attention are at the top:
>
> -use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '  My Problems  ';
> -use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '  Main Problems  ';
> +use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '	 My Problems	';
> +use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '	 Main Problems	';

I noticed issues like this when you added tabs to the FileManager.pm 
file as well.  It did not follow the conventions that you specified in 
the indentation policy.  E.g.,

         my $self                         = shift;
         my $r                                    = $self->r;
         my $authz                        = $r->authz;
         my $user                         = $r->param('user');

now was tabs to "align" the equal signs rather than spaces, as the 
policy seems to suggest.

Davide

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[John J. <jj...@as...>]

Sam Hathaway wrote:

> On Oct 20, 2004, at 4:03 PM, John Jones wrote:
>
>> I scanning through the recent cvs change to SetMaker.pm, it looks 
>> like there are places where whitespace was changed inside quoted 
>> strings (which would be displayed in output).  Was this intentional?  
>> There didn't seem to be an conventions in the twiki reference about 
>> this.
>
>
> No, just me being careless. (On the other hand, whitespace in HTML 
> output doesn't matter much, since browsers collapse it.) Can you point 
> to specific places so I can correct them?
> -sam

The ones which first caught my attention are at the top:

-use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '  My Problems  ';
-use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '  Main Problems  ';
+use constant MY_PROBLEMS => '	 My Problems	';
+use constant MAIN_PROBLEMS => '	 Main Problems	';


On the plus side, these are constants so that they will be used 
consistently in the file.  I may adjust others if I happen on them.

John

Re: [OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

On Oct 20, 2004, at 4:03 PM, John Jones wrote:

> I scanning through the recent cvs change to SetMaker.pm, it looks like 
> there are places where whitespace was changed inside quoted strings 
> (which would be displayed in output).  Was this intentional?  There 
> didn't seem to be an conventions in the twiki reference about this.

No, just me being careless. (On the other hand, whitespace in HTML 
output doesn't matter much, since browsers collapse it.) Can you point 
to specific places so I can correct them?
-sam

[OpenWeBWorK-devel] identation patch

[John J. <jj...@as...>]

Hi,

I scanning through the recent cvs change to SetMaker.pm, it looks like 
there are places where whitespace was changed inside quoted strings 
(which would be displayed in output).  Was this intentional?  There 
didn't seem to be an conventions in the twiki reference about this.

John

[OpenWeBWorK-devel] coding standards

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

Fairly new on the wiki:

http://devel.webwork.rochester.edu/twiki/bin/view/Webwork/ 
CodingStandards

Please read, comment, disagree, etc.
-sam

[OpenWeBWorK-devel] How do we want to handle implied function apply?

[Davide P.C. <dp...@un...>]

Folks:

For those of you who haven't been viewing the WeBWorK discussion group, 
we have been considering various ways to interpret function calls when 
the parentheses are missing, as in "cos 2x".  You can see the 
discussion at

	http://webhost.math.rochester.edu/webworkdocs/discuss/msgReader$2902

but I have suggested that we move it to this forum rather than continue 
it there.  I'll post more as soon as I get time.

Davide

[OpenWeBWorK-devel] invitation to join a mailing list for WeBWorK developers

[Sam H. <sh...@ma...>]

Hi,

We at the WeBWorK project have created a mailing list for discussions 
about WeBWorK development. This list will help contributors keep 
everyone informed about changes to the code and get advice on things. 
We expect it will be fairly low-traffic.

This list will complement the user-support discussion board on the 
WeBWorK web site.

To join, visit:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openwebwork-devel

Once people start posting, archives are available at:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=openwebwork-devel

Thanks.
-sam