pepe wrote: > 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.
Anything is *possible*...but it's...er...unusual to be saving an array of unrelated objects. > >> >> > 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? Anyone who understands how to use databases efficiently end effectively. > 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. Yes, I realized that after I posted. > I was trying to offer a different > point of view and have an open mind. OK, but in this case I don't think it was relevant. > > Cheers. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org mar...@marnen.org -- Posted via http://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.
