> -----Original Message----- > From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brock Allen > Sent: Friday, 8 October 2004 11:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Abstracting SQL > > I'd like to also thank Frans -- > > Interesting stuff. I want to ask/raise one question: > > What's the counter argument to the concern that trying to abstract my > traditional data access (T-SQL, or PLSQL, etc) behind a DB-independent > grammar causes losses in performance and or inability to exploit of > features > of my specific database? I mean, if I'm going to pay the cash for > SqlServer > or Oracle, I'd better get every last drop of perf out of it, yes?
[Ben Kloosterman] Don't forget you can also put complicated and important tables in memory on middle tiers this allows you to scale to many users and makes the DB performance irrelevant. These middle tiers also allows your OO design to capture business logic that requires sorting , joins , groupings , exclusions etc and allows you to have much simpler SQL . ( ie just simple selects and updates). In this case your SQL grammar is so simple it will be DB independent. Also using "features" of your DB without a later means you are often splitting your business logic between the app or middle Tier and the DB . Regards , Ben <snip> =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com Some .NET courses you may be interested in: Essential .NET: building applications and components with CSharp August 30 - September 3, in Los Angeles http://www.develop.com/courses/edotnet View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
