ID caching: how to test?

Peter Haworth pete at
Sun May 12 15:08:32 EDT 2013

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Alex Tweedly <alex at> wrote:

> in 5.5.3
> name takes 830 ms while id takes only 250 ms
> but in 6.0 (i.e. with id caching)
> name takes 830 ms while id takes 5 ms

Hi Alex,
I tried your script on my computer after creating 1000 objects like you
except they were images not buttons with some interesting results.

I did make one change to your script which was to set the number at the end
of the control name to a random number between 1 and 1000.

On 6.0, the access by name time was directly related to the number in the
image name - the higher the number, the longer the time - for example,
image 686 took 697ms, image 466 took 476ms, image 140 took 146ms, etc.
 Since I created the images using the clone command, their IDs would be
directly related to the number in their name so I'm sure that behavior is
related to their ID number. The id access times, as in your test, were a
constant 6ms.

In 5.5.4, I saw the same behavior for the name access times.  The ID access
times were consistantly around 1/3rd of the name access times, so pretty
much the same as your test.

My question is does it really matter? If my math is correct, you'd have to
do 50,000 accesses to get to a 1 second difference in performance based on
the 250ms/5ms times, which is still barely noticeable to most users.

Personally, I think there are more important things for RunRev to address
than this.  I feel the same way about the new button that displays the
script line that caused a message to appear in the message box;  I can't
imagine ever using that feature.

lcSQL Software <>

More information about the use-livecode mailing list