On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:23 PM, wojingo wrote:One thing worth considering is the memory used faulting all those objects when your not going to actually use them. I have used the second approach with good results to optimise methods like the ones you have above. If you know that the set of active reco
Owen McKerrow wrote:
Hi All,
Below are 2 methods that do the same thing, that is return an array of
active objects from a relationship. In this case I have a Group which
has many PostiionSets, some of which are active and some of which are
not. What Im wondering is which of the 2 methods
Owen,
I think you are mixing up EOF operations and making this more complex
than it needs to be. Let me see if I can simplify it.
On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Owen McKerrow wrote:
Say you go to the database not realizing that the objects are
already cahced, does WO then just do the sor
Further question.
Say you go to the database not realizing that the objects are
already cahced, does WO then just do the sort and filter on the these
cahched objects in memory ?
What happens if you have 1/2 the objects in memory and the other 1/2
still need to be retrieved from the DB ? Wh
On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Owen McKerrow wrote:
I have been using the first method but after talking with a college
yesterday Im wondering if the second way may be quicker.
The in-memory will stil require a trip( or several to the DB ) to
get the position sets, and then have to do the sort
Hi All,
Below are 2 methods that do the same thing, that is return an array
of active objects from a relationship. In this case I have a Group
which has many PostiionSets, some of which are active and some of
which are not. What Im wondering is which of the 2 methods is better
and or qui
