> First: assuming that you have a finite amount of time - I think that's > a safe assumption - you would be far better served optimizing your > SQL and your asynchronous processing. I've been working with CF > for many years, and I've looked at a lot of applications, and it's very > rare that I find one that has really been fully optimized in those two > respects. Those are going to get you a lot more bang for your buck, so > to speak.
+a lot Most of the CF applications I've worked on in my career haven't been run under real load or scale of any kind (lots of back-office stuff and smaller websites) and I've found that in many cases the "which is faster" doesn't matter in most cases anymore. It mattered a little bit back in CF4 when the server was a single 500Mhz Pentium III, but with modern versions of CF on modern hardware, the differences are negligible. (Sure there are cases where the CF code is just gross and is impacting performance, but that's a far cry from nitpicking whether expressions should include pound signs or not or if you should have one large cfoutput block or wrap each expression independently like some used to bicker about back in 1999). In the past couple of years I've been working on larger public-facing applications that do run at scale, and have found that the database tends to end up being the bottleneck. Learning about the internals of your database engine and optimizing your data structure, indexes, how execution plans are generated and cached, tuning the queries themselves, and so on has had far more impact on performance than anything in the CF code. -Justin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:357889 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
