RE: [CFCDev] CFC Performance question

[Andy Ousterhout]

Correct.  With Access, I can't use stored procedures(as far as I know), so right now, each product being added to the order results in a DB read.  

 

In some cases, this will still be necessary (User enters Product ID and the system will need to look up description and price.  If the product is added to the order off of a listing(the likely case for all Internet Retail orders and most internet wholesale and retail/wholesale telephone orders), then all of the information can be passed to the method and a DB lookup will not be required.

 

I am still curious, however, when the performance of a CFC starts to become an issue or when a programmer should consider design alternatives for high volume objects that may substitute better performance for perhaps some reduced usability. 

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] CFC Performance question

It depends on what you are doing in your addItem() Method. If you are making

DB calls to Verify Every Single Product Or Pass a array/other to the Products Verify

which makes only one call to the DB.

 

You probably are making Multiple calls to the Database. You can check all products

with one call to the DB, perhaps using a Stored Procedure.

Joe Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Andy Ousterhout
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 2:48 PM
To: Cfcdev
Subject: [CFCDev] CFC Performance question

I have a CFC that processes sales orders.  It has a Customer.cfc and Product.cfc to validate each of these properties.  On my dev machine, it took 591ms to create and save 1 order with 5 items.  Should I be satisfied with this performance or should I look at ways to improve this?  The majority of this time was in the 5 calls to the  AddItem method which has a product CFC verify item information, with the first call taking 80ms, then 50ms, 50ms, 30ms and 30ms.

 

I am using an Access DB and am in the process of moving to MS SQL 2000.  Should this improve performance?

 

Andy