Also, we found that CFUPDATE and CFINSERT can do very strange things with
SQL Server 7.x. We inherited a large number of sites that used CFUPDATE. The
page would process to the action page and often return the "Thanks for
posting, someone will contact you soon" type of message. Only the INSERT or
UPDATE did not actually happen. We changed them to actual queries and it
fixed the problem. Sadly, there are hundreds (thousands?) of these types of
queries in the code base.
They can be useful for semi-dynamic queries in which you pass in the table
name as a variable and let the tag figure out all the fields, but this is
part of our problem. The old systems used Access and we are moving all of
them to SQL Server.
Not sure if anyone else has had problems.
-Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:33 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFUPDATE vs. UPDATE
>
>
> sorry no numbers but I seem to find that UPDATE works a HAIR faster.
> virtually the same though especially for simple queries (which seem to be
> most).
>
> just a personal preference but I try alway to use SQL. why use <CF[sql
> here]> when you can use the real deal...?
>
>
>
>
> "Koo Pai Lao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/12/2001 05:24:25 PM
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
>
> Subject: CFUPDATE vs. UPDATE
>
>
> which is faster or why should i use one over the other?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
