Re: 4 the FAQ: Are Commercial DBMS Truly Relational?

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_mail.ocis.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:57:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4fbjm05gubecd62isvt45qcud2f2lflfco_at_4ax.com>


Andrew McDonagh <news_at_andrewcdonagh.f2s.com> wrote:

>Laconic2 wrote:
>> "Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message
>> news:41690aad$0$59441$ed2619ec_at_ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
>Snipped

>> There is a widespread belief in this field that wrong answers with good
>> performance are closer to the goal line than correct answers with poor
>> performance. I will never come around to that point of view. I almost
>> always want to get it right, first, then work on getting it right, and
>> fast.

     As it was worded in one newsgroup I follow: "How fast do you want your wrong answers?"

>I agree, its usually a case of 'premature optimisation'... i.e. they use
>these 'tricks' for optimisation thinking that will create performance
>benefits, but usually the real bottle necks are else where within the
>system. Therefore applying these tricks only serve to complicate the
>matter.
>
>By this I mean once real bottle necks have been removed, if these
>premature optimisation are in the code, then they create a maintenance
>headache, as people assume they are there because of a really
>performance gain was needed.

     They also obfuscate the algorithm, so they are particularly nasty when the code has a bug.

>Its akin to pre or post incrementing in C/C++, only after real profiling
>of the system to identify that the code area with the increment is the
>bottle neck, should the developers worry about the increments performance.
>
>Also, IMHO, premature optimisation tend to create designs that are
>fragile to future changes.

     Quite.

     If you really need the performance boost, micro-fiddling usually will not do it; you need a better algorithm.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.
Received on Sun Oct 10 2004 - 23:57:27 CEST

Original text of this message