Some comments interspersed for those not comfortable with virtual
fields. The primary context here is UD, but I note some differences
between UV & UD. Then an example.
cds
From: Anthony W. Youngman
>Certainly I would recommend never pointing a virtual field
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drew Henderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
John,
Never tried to see how far it would go.
The real issue is inefficiencyeach virtual field requires an
additional read from the dictionary in which it is located. Doing this
for every item in a report, you can
FWIW,
Although in theory this technique may logically access multiple dictionary
items for every record read, and potentially worse, if other records are
accessed by some foreign key, in practice there is so much cache memory
floating around in a commercial (and even home based) system, that the
ph
>The real issue is inefficiencyeach virtual field requires an
>additional read from the dictionary in which it is located. Doing
>this
>for every item in a report, you can see where the overhead makes
>chaining virtual fields inefficient.
I think that the above conjecture is probably wrong.
> I recently had a client that wanted a report that pulled from an enormous
> transactional based file. I offered to create an index to improve
> performance, but they declined saying that there were currently
> using Excel and manual data entry to create the same report at the
> end of the month,
that UD might do some magic in the way it handles
things like nested calls to VF's.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allen E. Elwood
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:52 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] Virtual f
"inefficient" compared to what?
And Inefficient measured how?
And is said Efficiency necessarily the significant software quality
attribute when up against competing attributes such as Maintainability,
Reusability, Robustness.
Of course, there's no single right answer. I'm just being curmudgeonly.
Hey John,
Actually, it makes perfect sense.
In the old days, where you had 20 dumb terminals attached to a system that
barely equaled the processing power of a 10 MHz PC-AT, you could really
hammer the system by having embedded calls in dict items. The old days were
the early 90's. 15 years lat
John,
Never tried to see how far it would go.
The real issue is inefficiencyeach virtual field requires an
additional read from the dictionary in which it is located. Doing this
for every item in a report, you can see where the overhead makes
chaining virtual fields inefficient.
Drew
A
