If you cached the queries by storing them in application scoped structures
that refresh on demand or on a timeframe, you can update the cache by
sending a command to any page in the application. It would be simple to
automate this across multiple servers if you can refer to the server by IP
or distinct domain name.
In this case, however, this isn't an issue anyway, since the data will
probably not be updated for weeks at a time and never as an emergency.
At 12:54 PM 2/2/01 -0800, you wrote:
>The benefits listed below diminishes if application operates under a load
>balanced environment since it's very hard to synchronize large cached
>queries or, any cached query for that matter, between servers. You can call
>all other servers when one is being updated but performance wise not a good
>idea unless you are getting huge returns.
>
>If you cache a product description and that product description is updated
>but since each of the 3 clustered servers are holding a different cache you
>might have a public relations nightmare if those orders are placed based on
>an out-of-date description.
>
>xing
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jennifer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:45 AM
>Subject: Re: The BETA IS OUT!!! (query a query)
>
>
> > We have cached queries that hold information that is used on every page
>hit
> > of the site. Every page returns a random record from the cached record
>set.
> > Now, each of these records have links to products, and each record has
> > several products associated with it. Ordinarily, the first link is
> > displayed. However, in one section of the site, all of the products are
> > displayed (sometimes these are recipe ingredients so let's assume that's
> > the case). Below the section that lists the products is a section that has
> > links to all recipes that contain that product.
> >
> > Now then (what does that phrase mean anyway?), I have cached queries that
> > contain the recipes and the associated products but the query is run on
>the
> > recipe id. However, to get the list of all recipes that contain a
>specified
> > product, I'd have to use a significantly different query but one that
> > contains all of the same fields, joined in a similar way. The only thing
> > that changes is the search criteria: you are either searching by recipe id
> > or you are searching by product id. In both cases, a lot of the same
> > information is returned.
> >
> > Right now, this sucks.
> >
> > However, if I could load in a query of all recipe ids joined on the
>product
> > ids and another list of the copy for the recipes joined on their recipe id
> > (including the first product id), I could do this instead:
> > 1) display the copy linked to the recipe id where that needs to happen
> > (every page of the site) by outputting a random record from the
>copy/recipe
> > id set
> > 2) generate the list of ingredients by querying the recipe id/product id
> > list for that recipe id
> > 3) generate the list of recipes by querying the recipe id/product id list
> > for the product id
> >
> > That means that instead of caching 100 recipe id/product id queries plus
> > 500 product id/recipe id queries (or hitting the db every time or loading
> > the records into a structure), I could cache 2 queries and query them as
> > appropriate. It would be much simpler and would save resources lost to all
> > other methods.
> >
> > Ding ding ding!
> >
> > At 03:09 PM 2/1/01 -0800, you wrote:
> > >I haven't thought of a kickass problem/solution that would need query a
> > >query ability so I'm happy that's it is there to use but not, stoked, at
> > >least not yet. =)
> > >
> > >Have not tested or even had the priv to touch 5.0 yet but isn't just
>query a
> > >query just a search option? So we can do a search for array values,
>structs,
> > >and now arrays which are in a way structs. Hmm..actually, I have yet to
>use
> > >structfind() with queries so I wouldn't know if that works already.
> > >
> > >Maybe with query a query you can isolate a range of records that fits a
>new
> > >condition on a existing query? but wouldn't that be a waste of ram and
>sql
> > >power to return a large query in the first place that you need to do sub
> > >queries on?
> > >
> > >Basically, I'm trying to find a good problem that would really need the
> > >feature and would speed up the performance while not wasting resources.
> > >
> > >Xing
> > >
> > >
> > > > So who's stoked about the Query a Query ability? Pretty damn cool eh?
> > > >
> > > > Michael Buffington
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > (714) 556-3890 x222
> > > > http://www.price.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
