Thank for your post Dick.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff I'm doing I can't do in the stored
procedures... For various reasons, I'm developing on Access 2000, and will
then port over to SQL Server before the site goes live. I can call stored
procedures in Access 2000, but they don't handle multiple commands. Once
I port to SQL Server I can put a lot of the additional processing into the
stored procedures, but there is still work that I would have to do in the
pages. I definitely agree that the SQL engine will process the stored
procedures faster, because it compiles most, if not all, of the stored
procedure. It's what to do when I get the recordset back that's puzzling
me at the moment. In order to be as efficient as possible.. should I use
the QueryAddColumn function, and just add the additional fields.. then loop
through that query a second time when I need to.. or should I create an
array of structures when I first loop through the recordset, add the
additional fields to it, and then loop through that when required?
Or am I just worrying needlessly over a microsecond or two!!? :^)
At 23:11 31/05/00 -0700, you wrote:
>If the "extra fields" are computed from other fields in the SQL query
>and/or external data (known at the time of the query), you might
>consider computing these fields as part of the SQL query itself...
>using scalar functions or T/SQL statements (SQL Server).
>
> From what I have heard/read/experienced, the SQL engine can probably
>do this a lot more efficiently that any CF routines you could write.
>
>Dick
>
>
>At 10:10 AM +1000 6/1/2000, Nick Slay wrote:
> >ok... so when it comes to performance, it's better to use strutctures than
> >arrays and both of those are better than lists. But what about
> >queries? Queries that are generated using QueryNew as opposed to SQL
> >statements.
> >
> >I have a SQL Query result set that I need to loop through, calculate a
> >bunch of extra fields, and then store that off for looping through later.
> >
> >At the moment I create a new query, take the fields I want from the SQL
> >result set, and add them, plus the new fields into a new query. There are
> >probably more efficient ways of doing this...
> >
> >Does anyone know whether creating another query, and looping through it
> >later is going to be better or worse than creating an array of structures
> >and looping through those instead? For that matter would I be better to
> >add a column to the query that I got from SQL Server, and then loop through
> >that again?
> >
> >Thanks for any feedback!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Archives: http://www.eGroups.com/list/cf-talk
>To Unsubscribe visit
>http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
>send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
>the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.eGroups.com/list/cf-talk
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
