On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:24:49 -0500, Bryan F. Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What? How is it not? You write static files vs using the application scope. > Depending on the application and environment static files would be as fast > if not faster than using the application scope. And you don't have to worry > about corruption of the memory or making a mistake in your logic to store > the data in the application.
I think the implicit point is that memory (e.g. application scope) is faster than I/O from the disk (e.g a file) -- and considering that *read* would be the far more frequent step than *write*, anything in memory should be faster. But considering how many layers of caching are under the hood (webserver, appserver, os, disk controller) the difference between explicitly storing in memory and simply using a file is probably moot for many of the articles. I'd bet letting the various components (severs, os, etc) manage caching (and thus memory) is probably going to result in better overall results than manually managing it (by putting things in application scope) unless you're doing a lot of performance tuning. It would be a shame, for example, to use up a lot of memory with application scope variables and starve the web server, app server, and database as the site/data scales larger. While I'm not advocating it, running purely with database queries makes nearly as much sense (at least, up to a point) -- since both ColdFusion and the database are caching the disk-based data into memory. Using included files and having Apache/etc do the caching is analogous. In both cases, the servers are going to try and minimize disk i/o, so you'll end up with data in memory most of the time anyhow. This thread is really turning into a discussion about the basic tradeoff of relying on generic algorithms provided by the software stack to optimize the amount of data in memory vs specific tuning and optimization steps that are application specific... > > If Damien is talking about storing the articles in the application scope I > > would write them to disk and include them. And then just update them as > > needed instead of storing them to memory. > > Not nearly as fast as putting it in application scope. > > -Adam > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:196296 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
