> Also the GROUP BY clasue in SQL is a different beast than the group
> attribute in <cfquery>
It is, and I think it's more what you're looking for. You don't have to
order a group by. By default, depending on your query, it would order it
the way it was entered.
SQL is really quite awesome, and a super huge thing for CF devs to know
about. I can't state enough how much simpler life is when you know about
groups and joins and whatnot. Groups and joins are some of the most complex
queries you will build, but the performance gain is such that it's WELL
worth digging in and learning what's possible.
The idea is that the DB can do a lot of stuff WAY faster than CF can.
That's what it's designed for. Not utilizing it, and re-inventing the wheel
within your CF code is asking for lengthy CF code and slow execution.
SQL's also a sticky part, and a good place for abstraction. I can
appreciate Isaac's SQL stuff. There are a TON of nifty features in MySQL
that plain aren't available in MSSQL, and vice versa, so unless you are
organized, switching between the two can be a bitch. 'specially if you don't
have your queries all in one spot, or at least sorta separate.
The performance gains when using said "proprietary" functions can be
significant. Not to mention ease of use. The MySQL group_concat() is
freaking awesome, as is find_in_set(). They can make life easy, until you
have to switch to some other DB (oracle has some great functions as well).
I guess it boils down to the thing about linux and filesystems, and what
you're after. It's the whole optimization morass, where optimization refers
to speed, but depending on the frame of reference, you get totally different
output. One super huge gain in one area doesn't do ANY good if it drags
down another area more than the total "time saved" (or even the same amount,
really).
If you're looking at a 20 year frame, what's important is pretty different
than if you're looking at 2 years. Keeping both in your head at once is a
trip, and brings to mind the whole "flying a helicopter" analogy. (I must
add that I love my Blade CP, an RC heli). Eh. Guess I could have kept this
short and said "look into SQL"...
Bah. I think the real problem is one of quantum physics, there is no
"objective" reality. Impossible to achieve, by some crazy conundrum of
existence. So we make do. We pretend that there is such a thing as
objectivity, for the most part. But it's a sham! ;-)
I did enjoy the "leaky abstraction" article, it did say (much betterly,
I might add ;) much of what I was getting at. Good stuff to think about. It
didn't come off as saying OO wasn't worthy tho... just that the truth lies
somewhere between you and me. The logic seemed sound. Pragmatic, even. I
guess articles like those are kind of Gödel-ish: We had it figured out man!
Why'd you go and do that!
=]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:237645
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
