Timeline for Designing a Database Application with OOP
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2022 at 3:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/1571333502196645890 | ||
| Oct 18, 2012 at 20:55 | comment | added | Tim C | Mike - in this system, the user does not manage more than 150 records at a time, so sub-second is acceptable. I've never tested the system beyond those specifications, because the business rule explicitly prevents a user from having more records than that. Now that I say that, I realize I probably should test it anyway... | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 13:52 | comment | added | mike30 | BTW although your stored proc solution is faster, it is extremely slow itself. 100 records per second is crawling like a snail. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | mike30 | Check if you have connection pooling enabled. Each pass of the loop may be literally opening and closing a connection, skewing the performance comparisons. | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 21:21 | answer | added | TMN | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 19:22 | answer | added | Kramii | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 19:17 | answer | added | mike30 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 18:35 | answer | added | Timothy Baldridge | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 18:32 | comment | added | Tim C | I think I can accept that as a very reasonable statement. I was just dumbfounded at how enormously more efficient the stored procedure was. | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 18:23 | comment | added | Ryathal | nothing is going to beat SQL for CRUD | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 16:07 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 17, 2012 at 16:13 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2012 at 16:03 | history | asked | Tim C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |