ASP Classic Performance Question

[Merovingian]

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

Thanks for any advice/suggestions.

[James Jones]

That is what i usually do. works fine for me.
James Jones


"Merovingia n" <st***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ k70g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

Thanks for any advice/suggestions.

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

Merovingian wrote:

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a factor.
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Merovingian]

Thanks Bob!

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:

Merovingian wrote:

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a factor.
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Merovingian]

Could I get some links to back up the performance between the two
examples?

Merovingian wrote:

Thanks Bob!

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:

Merovingian wrote:

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
>
>
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>
>
Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?
>
<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>
>
I think, no, but I need some confirmation.
>

No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a factor.
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Jon Paal]

there's not going to be a difference to worry about, but you could use a timestamp to note start of page processing and end of page
processing then calc difference.
personally, I think before attempting to solve a performance problem, perhaps you should demonstrate that the problem exists...
"Merovingia n" <st***********@ gmail.comwrote in message news:11******** **************@ b28g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Could I get some links to back up the performance between the two
examples?

Merovingian wrote:

>Thanks Bob!

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:

Merovingian wrote:
I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a factor.
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Merovingian]

This is a topic of discussion between me and another developer and I
can't seem to convey that it makes no difference except that the
readability and mantainability of the code is easier without all the
markup in the ASP tag delimiters. Personally, we wouldn't be having
this conversation if we were using ASP.NET.

Jon Paal wrote:

there's not going to be a difference to worry about, but you could use a timestamp to note start of page processing and end of page
processing then calc difference.
personally, I think before attempting to solve a performance problem, perhaps you should demonstrate that the problem exists...
"Merovingia n" <st***********@ gmail.comwrote in message news:11******** **************@ b28g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Could I get some links to back up the performance between the two
examples?

Merovingian wrote:

Thanks Bob!

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
Merovingian wrote:
I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
>
>
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>
>
Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?
>
<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>
>
I think, no, but I need some confirmation.
>
No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a factor.
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

I doubt a cite* would convince him. I suspect the only thing that would
probably convince him is a test. So take 5 minutes and create a test package
and run it.
*I have no cites. I really don't remember where I read that the performance
issue was solved with IIS 5.1. You may find someone with a link in the iis
group.

Merovingian wrote:

This is a topic of discussion between me and another developer and I
can't seem to convey that it makes no difference except that the
readability and mantainability of the code is easier without all the
markup in the ASP tag delimiters. Personally, we wouldn't be having
this conversation if we were using ASP.NET.

Jon Paal wrote:

>there's not going to be a difference to worry about, but you could
use a timestamp to note start of page processing and end of page
processing then calc difference.
personally, I think before attempting to solve a performance
problem, perhaps you should demonstrate that the problem exists...
"Merovingian " <st***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:11******* *************** @b28g2000cwb.go oglegroups.com. ..

>>Could I get some links to back up the performance between the two
examples?

Merovingian wrote:
Thanks Bob!

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
Merovingi an wrote:
>I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
>Response.W rite methods...such as.
>>
>>
><%
>Response.W rite "<table><tr><td >"
>Response.W rite testVariable
>Response.W rite "</td></tr></table>"
>%>
>>
>Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?
>>
><table><tr ><td><%=testVar iable%></td></tr></table>
>>
>I think, no, but I need some confirmation.
>>
No. I think in IIS4, there used to be, but that is no longer a
factor. --
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will
get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

[McKirahan]

"Merovingia n" <st***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ k70g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.

<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>

Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?

<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

I think, no, but I need some confirmation.

Thanks for any advice/suggestions.

VBScript String Concatenation
(And Why It Should Be Avoided Like The Plague)
http://www.asp101.com/articles/marcu...on/default.asp
"... here are the results of the benchmarks ..."
How do I make my ASP pages more efficient?
http://classicasp.aspfaq.com/general...s-more-efficie
nt.html
"Don't generate large strings in single variables -- concatenation is very
expensive."
Here's what I do:

<%
Dim arrSTR()
ReDim arrSTR(100)
Dim intSTR
intSTR = 0
Dim strSTR
'*
Append "<table border='0'>"
Append "<tr>"
Append " <th>`Hello World!`<hr></th>"
Append "</tr>"
Append "</table>"
'*
Response.Write Concat()

Sub Append(strSTR)
'****
'* Append strings to array entries ReDim as needed; (see "Concat()") .
'****
strSTR = strSTR & ""
If intSTR UBound(arrSTR) Then
ReDim Preserve arrSTR(UBound(a rrSTR) + 100)
End If
arrSTR(intSTR) = strSTR & vbCrLf
intSTR = intSTR + 1
End Sub

Function Concat()
'****
'* Concatenates array entries into a single string; (see "Append()") .
'****
Redim Preserve arrSTR(intSTR)
Concat = Replace(Join(ar rSTR,""),"`",Ch r(34))
Erase arrSTR
ReDim arrSTR(100)
intSTR = 0
End Function
%>

Only one Response.Write( ) and the code is lot more readable.

[Michael D. Kersey]

Merovingian wrote:

I'm maintaining an ASP Classic file that has HTML withing
Response.Write methods...such as.
<%
Response.Write "<table><tr><td >"
Response.Write testVariable
Response.Write "</td></tr></table>"
%>
Would their be a performance hit if I were to write this instead?
<table><tr><td> <%=testVariable %></td></tr></table>

No.
An ASP page is, on the first request for that page, compiled to p-code,
executed and the p-code cached for subsequent executions. During the
compile step, any embedded HTML is replaced by a call to the
(unpublished) Response.WriteB lock(N) method. Here N refers to the Nth
"block" of embedded HTML. Blocks numbers start with 0. You can test this
by writing explicit calls to Response.WriteB lock() for your edification.

Consequently output is either from a Response.Write( ) call or a
Response.WriteB lock() call. Any difference in speed is insignificant.

We've discussed this before many times on these newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...=2006&safe=off

Further details on how ASP is compiled and executed
See in particular "Appendix 3: ASP Caching":
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...on130121120120

Explanation of compilation with examples of ASP p-code:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...e=source&hl=en