logging-log4cxx-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anita Banerji" <Anita.Bane...@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk>
Subject RE: level problem
Date Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:52:15 GMT
Hi Curt,

I've updated to the SVN head and this has solved both my problems. The
performance is now much improved and I only get the messages from the
selected level appearing.

Thanks for your help,


-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org] 
Sent: 02 November 2007 17:44
To: Log4CXX User
Subject: Re: level problem

On Nov 2, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Anita Banerji wrote:

> I am also finding a significant performance penalty when including  
> DEBUG level statements even though this level is not enabled, and  
> therefore have to comment out log4cxx code out of frequently run  
> areas.
> Any ideas on how I can fix this?
> Thanks.

If you are using logstream, I believe it had a pretty high overhead  
on some platforms as the base std::basic_ostream<> constructor was  
surprisingly expensive.  However, if you attempted to base logstream  
on something other than std::basic_ostream, then you could not match  
all of the basic_ostream semantics.  Likely logstream will be pulled  
from the distribution before release since it was hard to get just  
right.  It is only just one header file and if you want to keep using  
it, you would be free to continue.

Recently, the LOG4CXX_INFO and similar macros were reworked to  
restore use of insertion operators  within the message parameter to  
the macro like:

LOG4CXX_INFO(logger, "Hello" << ", World");

The current implementation doesn't compile with VC6 (no problem with  
VC 2008 or gcc, haven't checked VC 7, 7.1 or 8) due to a compiler bug/ 

If you are using logstream (and not using VC6), I'd suggest modifying  
the code to use the LOG4CXX_INFO macros and testing the performance.

If you are using the LOG4CXX_INFO macros and are still seeing  
performance issues, please create a sample program and attach it to a  
bug report and I'll profile it and see if there is something biting us.

View raw message