I guess I should mark all of my responses to DB related questions with "refers mostly to SQL Server 2000". So Jochem when you see my DB post think SQL Server 2000 - I am yet to work more with SQL 2005.
TK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:49 AM Subject: Re: <cftransaction> Question > Andrew Scott wrote: >> Well anyone who puts user interaction between trnsactions should be shot. >> >> But to day that a transaction should only ever run for 10ms, and if it >> goes >> out to 50ms is not a good call either. >> >> I have developed applications that have been very complex in the >> calculations, and rely heavily on day being stored i numerous tables, and >> can go out as far as 200ms. Now this is not that much of a perfomance hit >> in >> this case, because that is as optimised as that code is ever going to >> get. > > I have some heavy processing tasks that run transactions that take > minutes and cross 20+ tables. As long as the database is not MS SQL > Server 2000 there really is no noticeable performance impact. If the > database is MS SQL Server 2000 the site goes down after about 40 seconds > because the server starts escalating locks on some tables that are used > by pretty much every page. > > Jochem > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:271673 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
