I am not saying that your input is worthless, but I think it is a good
developer's duty to make a case for more efficient ways to do things. From
what I gathered of the initial post, nothing was set in stone. Given that,
I can't in good conscience agree with most of the methods put forth when,
based on my experience with caching in my own applications, they aren't the
most efficient given the current situation. I am open to debate the methods
I offered if someone thinks they aren't good methods, or if someone has an
idea they think is better.
I think in these types of situations that the developer should lead the
client in matters of efficiency, as long as no required functionality falls
by the wayside in the process.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Haskell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: The search is killing the server. Please help!
I don't disagree with you andy, 5000 results does sound completely
rediculous. But the fact of the matter is if someone wants to do this,
then I'll give my input on how I think it should be done. I am not one
to refuse to give helpful insight on how to accomplish a task just
becuase I think it is a bad idea to do the task the proposed way. But
yes I agree we limit our searh results to 501. If 501 reusults are
returned we suggest refining the search to our users.
Adam H
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:02:19 -0400, Andrew Tyrone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I fail to see why a lot of these ideas are even necessary in this case.
The
> records returned number about 5000. NO ONE is going to page through all
> 5000 records. This is what the search filters are for. Just return the
top
> 20, 50, 100 records ordered by whatever your business rules require ONLY
IF
> there is no search criteria entered. IF there is search criteria entered,
> then you can return a varied result set based on the entered criteria.
>
> Caching 5000 records in an indeterminate amount of sessions is not a good
> idea. Furthermore, caching in the application scope would keep wiping out
> the cached query, unless every user is searching for the same exact
critera
> (highly unlikely).
>
> Another idea using the application scope would be to cache the full 5000
> records and then use query of query for specific searches, which you
> wouldn't cache as they'd be narrowed down by the user-entered criteria.
>
> Andy
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
