Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POWhy is (mono) asp.net slower than php?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. COYou're trying to make *lots* of requests at the same time, in a pretty uncontrolled fashion. Now your client *may* be throttled by the number of requests it will issue to the same host at the same time - it depends how everything is configured... or it may be spamming the server with hundreds of requests at once. At that point, the behaviour will depend on how the server handles multiple connections. Note that your count increment is also not thread safe. Have you tried a *synchronous* fetch, so you're only making one request at a time, out of interest?
      singulars
    2. COJon Skeet: I was unsure how thread safety would work. All i know is its equally unsafe to each of them. What class might i use to increment the count in a thread safe manner? If you look at line 31 you can see i do have a version that handles one request at a time.
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
    3. COYou could use `Interlocked.Increment` for example. What's the difference in performance when you use a synchronous approach? Note that if there's nothing dynamic in the page, it may well be that PHP is better at noticing that than ASP.NET, and is basically caching. As with all benchmarks, you have to ask whether it's really measuring the scenario which is relevant to the application you're interested in.
      singulars
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload