Not really obfuscating. Just trying to explain that 1 transaction is going to work faster than 100 transactions. If you agree with that, I have no problem. If not, you might also believe that putc performs as fast as puts, which is wrong. On Feb 14, 2013 4:59 PM, "Miles Fidelman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Carlson wrote: > >> >> Here's where I believe the issue lies: 1. Adding approximately 100 or >> more objects to a collection backed by a relational database, in an >> interactive system. I believe the time for the transaction(s) took too >> long. I am not sure if the REST service supported by the database used a >> single transaction or even session ids. I believe the REST supported by >> the database was generic. As far as I know, the slowness was laid to REST, >> since eliminating REST sped things up. Obviously if you design a CRUD >> interface REST works okay. The use case ultimately was uploading 100s of >> rows from spreadsheets...possibly more than one per customer. >> >> >> Sorry.. but you're just obfuscating the issue. You're now talking about > a specific database, with a specific interface - and saying nothing about > what interface/api/protocol is being used. > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > ______________________________**_________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc> >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
