On 9/10/00, Dave Watts penned:
>
>You might find on a server that's better prepared to handle operations in
>memory, your method is much more efficient. For example, if you do it on an
>NT server that has physical memory to spare, you may be better off with your
>method. I've found this to be the case for some very large writes I've had
>to do in the past. On your 64 Mb Win98 machine, it may have had to use
>virtual memory to complete the operation, which of course requires reading
>to and writing from the disk.
>
>The moral of this story, if there is one, is that there are lots of
>variables that enter into a "which is faster" question - often so many that
>you can't arrive at a general answer.
Yeah, I'll have to give it a try on the "Beast" if the situation
arises. But still, 3,900 records in 9 seconds, appending one at a
time. That's pretty quick. :)
--
Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.twcreations.com/
954.721.3452
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
