[omniORB] omniORB performance

[Zeljko Rajic]

Sai-Lai Lo wrote:
 
> This topic have been discussed several times on the list. Have a look at
> this posting to see if it answer your question:
> 
> http://www.uk.research.att.com/omniORB/archives/1997-06/0048.html

Yes, it did. Thanks for the hint !

> While we are on the subject of performance, I might as well mention this.
> There seems to be a general believe that doing sequential string matching
> to match an operation name with the upcall routine is inefficent and "high
> performance" ORBs should do something like hashing or binary tree
> search. We did some measurements and find that simple string match is
> actually faster for small number of operations defined in an interface. The
> picture reverses as the number of operations increases but the yield point
> is at least tens of if not over 100 operations. It seems to me it is hard
> to find in real use an interface with over 100 operations or else it is a
> really fat interface that can do with some weight loss exercises.

Hmm... isn't it possible to delayer the search for correct operation?
Instead of first seraching for the correct object and afterwards for the
correct object operation, to directly search for the correct object
operation in one step ??!! I guess it shouldn't be that hard to change a
hashing algorithm for finding the object to find the operation directly
?? Is it ?
As far as I remember Doug Schmidt did something like this with his TAO
ORB, didn't he ?

  Zeljko