It's funny you should bring caching up, Dave. What do you make of this
error message?
Retrieval of cached query failed
The error occurred while processing an element with a general identifier of
(CFQUERY), occupying document position (74:1) to (74:175) in the template
file C:\WEBSITE\HTDOCS\SM
In truth, I believe that I was the one who originated the test for these minor
speed differences 'back in the days'. The reasoning was actually quite simple,
different pieces of CF were coded internally in different ways. This could most
readily be seen in the massive speed difference between IIF a
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 2:38 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFSET in CFMX
>
>
> > It's really interesting - to me - to see such attention
> > to such 'smal
> It's really interesting - to me - to see such attention
> to such 'small' language details in terms of performance.
> ColdFusion is the only language I've ever worked in where
> such small details made such big difference in speed...
> and now it seems it is only historical (which is code:
>
Well, using CFSCRIPT, the first was always unbelieveably slow.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:39 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFSET in CFMX
>
>
> The first or the second? I and ot
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Your index is "&i>
>
> This is where things get tricky style wise.
FWIW, I've settled on the latter. In Homesite+ I have strings set to be
light blue and italicised. So with the second one I
It's really interesting - to me - to see such attention to such 'small'
language details in terms of performance. ColdFusion is the only
language I've ever worked in where such small details made such big
difference in speed... and now it seems it is only historical (which is
code: CFML now beh
The first or the second? I and others had seen the second taking more time. In
the first CF is putting a string together from pieces. In the second CF is
parsing the string once to find CF elements and then evaluating them. An
additional bit of work.
> > Both are about the same speed.
> > > "&dat
> 3. Setting a variable to a combination of text and dynamic data
> can be done by
> setting the dynamic data within the string OR by concatenating it
> all together.
> Both are about the same speed.
> "&dateformat(now())&".
> Your index is "&i>
>
Yay! The first syntax was incredibly slow in pr
9 matches
Mail list logo