Stupid question, but - what stress testing did you do on your app before you deployed it?
Mark On Jan 24, 2008 4:53 AM, Vesko Kehayov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > I agree 300mb is a small price for the benefits of cfqueryparam. That said, > the servers have been up for a few more days after this change and the > Working Set is now about 1 GB on the servers. This is the slowest web traffic > time of the year for us and as traffic increases so does the memory usage. > So far, CFQueryParam has doubled the memory usage of our application. > > I will take a look at the max pool statements because this is the number of > prepared statements that is saved by ColdFusion for QueryParams and we > currenty use the default of 1000. > > Thanks for the suggestion > > > >I would expect that under the hood, when you use cfqueryParam, > >ColdFusion is able to pool/cache the Java PreparedStatement objects. > > > >Since htey are cached, they don' t need to be recreated on every SQL > >call, which wil aid in your SQL performance. > > > >There is a 'max pooled statements' setting on a datasource, you may > >find that changing that will change how the memory is held up. > > > >Mind you, this is mostly supposition on my part, it is how i would > >expect CF to work behind the scenes. > > > >That being said, what does it matter? RAM is pretty inexpensive these > >days, and if you get the added SQL security and performance, it's no > >big deal. > > > >Mark > > > > > > > >On Jan 23, 2008 2:05 PM, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:297221 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
