Sam, Thanks for that. That is what I was trying to disern. Thank you greatly.
Brian Goralczyk On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Sam Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > Brian, both scenarios will use the escalation queue, and in 6.3 only one > thread. Scenario 2 will have an overhead in terms of filter counts, plus > also roll back. If any one of the records fail then the whole process will > roll back. > > Sam > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Goralczyk > *Sent:* Friday, 21 March 2008 11:01 a.m. > *To:* ARSList > *Subject:* Re: Efficiency question > > > > ** > > It is my understanding that the first process would happen quicker because > the escalation is only running on one record. It does however require one > aditional step. > > > > The reason for the display only field is so that the form will record an > update and start the filters firing. It is running unqualified because I > want it to fire on every record. So you are correct in that assumption. > > > > Am I wrong in my assumption that having the escalation run on one record > that then fires a filter to every record in another form would cause the > second action to become multi-threaded? The intention here is to cause the > server to fire on as many LDAP records as possible as quickly as possible. > The LDAP form is the slowest piece of the process. By FAR!! > > > > Brian Goralczyk > > > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
