On Feb 1, 7:53 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > pepe wrote: > > I am sorry but I don't have an answer about the RAM question. However > > I would like to answer Marnen s comment. While I agree that letting > > the DB do the work for mass record processing should be the best and > > most efficient way to go by reading the OP one cannot assume that is > > the way things are in this case. > > No, but it's likely.
Anything is likely. > > > The array used by the OP could very > > well contain tons of different types of objects, used for very > > different purposes and not necessarily related to each other. > > Then for the purpose of saving, they should be separated out by type. > Queries don't go in loops. Period. Says who? The point I was making is that it would depend on the situation and the solution the OP is trying to give to his particular problem. > > > Pierre > > never gave any indication it was one way or the other. > > True. So why "correct" me with an unlikely exception to the general > principle? I wasn't trying to "correct" you. I was trying to offer a different point of view and have an open mind. Cheers. > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > mar...@marnen.org > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
