Stupid question, but - what stress testing did you do on your app
before you deployed it?
Mark
On Jan 24, 2008 4:53 AM, Vesko Kehayov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mark,
When we first decided to implement cfqueryparam, we stress tested the
customer facing portion (which gets 95% or
Group, I set the max pooled statements to 0 for all
datasources. This change did not resolve the memory issue
introduced by cfqueryparam.
I welcome other possible suggestions on how to address this issue.
Is the memory consumption actually causing a problem? 800 MB isn't overly
large
Group, I set the max pooled statements to 0 for all
datasources. This change did not resolve the memory issue
introduced by cfqueryparam.
I welcome other possible suggestions on how to address this issue.
Is the memory consumption actually causing a problem? 800 MB isn't overly
large
Folks,
I agree 300mb is a small price for the benefits of cfqueryparam. That said,
the servers have been up for a few more days after this change and the Working
Set is now about 1 GB on the servers. This is the slowest web traffic time of
the year for us and as traffic increases so does the
If your web traffic is so high that using the cfqueryparam is driving your site
speed down, I would suggest looking into changing your adhoc queries into
stored procedure calls. This will put the work on the database and relieve
some of the pressure from the web servers.
Good luck,
William
Here is some additional information about our environment.
We have roughly 1000 datasources per CF Server with each one being set to 1000
max pooled statements. This is why I am really looking at the max pooled as a
real potential issue. I have read posts with recommendations to reduce it to
Stupid question, but - what stress testing did you do on your app
before you deployed it?
Mark
On Jan 24, 2008 4:53 AM, Vesko Kehayov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I agree 300mb is a small price for the benefits of cfqueryparam. That said,
the servers have been up for a few more days
Stupid question, but - what stress testing did you do on your app
before you deployed it?
Mark
On Jan 24, 2008 4:53 AM, Vesko Kehayov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
When we first decided to implement cfqueryparam, we stress tested the customer
facing portion (which gets 95% or more of all
There is a 'max pooled statements' setting on a datasource, you may
find that changing that will change how the memory is held up.
Iirc the max pooled statements setting doesn't work quite the way one
might expect and actually it seems in many cases it may be preferable to
set it to zero. I
My guess would be that cfqueryparam caches somethings into memory.
But is a 300 meg climb really that big of a deal?
Still not a good enough reason NOT to use it :-)
J.J.
On 1/22/08, Vesko Kehayov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a large content management application used by retailers to
I guess I'm not stunned by this, but I can't really explain it. I
mean, using cfqueryparam forces CF to use bind variables to send to
the query... and it does some level of data validation probably though
I'm not sure the CF side of things handles any of that (though I
suspect the maxlength
I would expect that under the hood, when you use cfqueryParam,
ColdFusion is able to pool/cache the Java PreparedStatement objects.
Since htey are cached, they don' t need to be recreated on every SQL
call, which wil aid in your SQL performance.
There is a 'max pooled statements' setting on a
12 matches
Mail list logo
