Re: Page Processing Efficiency

From: Jim Kennedy <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:29:27 GMT
Message-ID: <X9Glb.813$9E1.6309_at_attbi_s52>


It should be on the documentation. I don't have cold fusion docs. We are talking about parameterized queries.
Jim
"Michael Hill" <hillmw_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3F96964A.F15BA10E_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com...
> Jim,
>
> Can you elaborate with a simple example?
>
> Mike
>
> Jim Kennedy wrote:
>
> > use bind variables. Lot of cold fusion folks don't and it hurts their
> > scalability. Cold Fusion does support it.
> > Jim
> > "Michael Hill" <hillmw_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F95C80B.30A66D28_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com...
> > > If I had a page that was being generated using coldfusion from queries
> > > to an oracle table would it be better response time:
> > > A) pulling the all the data using 1 query and iterating over the same
> > > result table multiple time producing desired arrays, or
> > > B) pulling specific data using specific queries with less production
 of
> > > arrays and proccessing after te data was returned?
> > >
> > > In the example I had 2 date fields called start and comp in a table
 with
> > > other like data and wanted to know what the min value was from both
> > > fields.
> > >
> > > So I have to "select * from the table where mynum='131'" and then
> > > process the result set
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > "select * from the table where mynum='131'" as well as 2 more queries:
> > >
> > > "SELECT min(min_start) as min_start
> > > FROM
> > > (
> > > SELECT min(BASE_START) as min_start
> > > FROM TASK
> > > WHERE my_NUM = '131'
> > > UNION
> > > SELECT min(ACT_START) as min_start
> > > FROM TASK
> > > WHERE my_NUM = '131'
> > > )"
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > " SELECT max(max_comp) as max_comp
> > > FROM
> > > (
> > > SELECT max(BASE_COMP) as max_comp
> > > FROM TASK
> > > WHERE my_NUM = '131'
> > > UNION
> > > SELECT max(ACT_COMP) as max_comp
> > > FROM TASK
> > > WHERE my_NUM = '131'
> > > )
> > > "
> > >
>
Received on Thu Oct 23 2003 - 03:29:27 CEST

Original text of this message