>My understanding from what we talked about last night Nolan is that you >want to do as Marc suggested and separate the SQL from the CFML to further >simplfy the CFML. This would be a reason for doing this.
Hey Rick, Last night we spoke about running all queries in the application file as opposed to a per request basis. This way the queries are always available to be referenced. I realize that using stored procedures only increases the server performance with certain scenarios. In the same way that all queries are run in the application file, could you 'run' all your <cfstoredproc> statements in the application file as well, and reference the results throughout the site? Maybe I'm just thinking up crazy things. Does this even make sense? > > Would there be any > > benefit to setting the application var (myList) based on the stored > > procedure (the query in SQL)? Is this even possible? Would you notice > > a performance difference? Or.. would it be best to just run query in the > > application file? > > I don't really understand that statement. What do you want to achieve with > that list? Why set it as an App variable? I guess I sort of got off topic Marc. Sorry. The reason I wanted to set the list in the application file is that it is referenced site-wide in the app (which is built in Fusebox). If I make a change to the database (i.e. add a new column), the application file will catch update and pass the proper variables to the fusebox statement. Much thanks. Nolan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Mason Sent: January 30, 2001 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFTALKTor] SQL - Returning Column Names > DISCLAIMER ;) > I'm not a SQL Server guru, soemone please correct/complete me if my > understanding is wrong/unclear. Neither am I but.... My understanding from what we talked about last night Nolan is that you want to do as Marc suggested and separate the SQL from the CFML to further simplfy the CFML. This would be a reason for doing this. As for performance increases, on a query that only returns a small result set the performance increase would be insignificant. In my experience the performance differences are only noticable when doing something that involves a great deal of processing such as multiple inserts into mulitple tables. Rick Mason Pangaea NewMedia, Inc. http://www.pangaeanewmedia.ca 416-922-1600 ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:43 PM Subject: RE: [CFTALKTor] SQL - Returning Column Names > > I've just started to > > learn about Stored Procedures, and benefits of running/referring to > > queries on the SQL server level (cfstoredproc) as opposed to CF level > > (referring to the query, not the stored proc) > > I'm not sure what you mean by "running/referring to queries on the SQL > server level (cfstoredproc)". > > DISCLAIMER ;) > I'm not a SQL Server guru, soemone please correct/complete me if my > understanding is wrong/unclear. > > Basically, a Stored Procedure is a piece of SQL code that resides in the > RDBMS and as already been checked for syntax errors and been precompiled > where as when you submit a query through ODBC it has to be parsed for syntax > errors, then compiled and run, thus a stored procedure would return results > faster since it is already parsed and compiled. > > > Would there be any > > benefit to setting the application var (myList) based on the stored > > procedure (the query in SQL)? Is this even possible? Would you notice > > a performance difference? Or.. would it be best to just run query in the > > application file? > > I don't really understand that statement. What do you want to achieve with > that list? Why set it as an App variable? > > From what I get, it doesn't make a huge difference in performance whether > you use a stored procedure or a CFQuery to return a one row recordset. It > might be good if you plan on putting ALL your apps SQL code in stored > procedures, just for the sake of separting the SQL code from the CFM code or > whatever logic is behind that. Some DBA's prefer it that way since they > don't have to bother with CFM code. For simplicity, maybe a bit of lazyness, > I would just use a CFQUERY from what I understand. > > If you could give more details maybe I, or someone else, could advise you > better.. > > Marc > > - > You are subscribed to the CFUGToronto CFTALK ListSRV. > This message has been posted by: "Marc Campeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To Unsubscribe, Please Visit and Login to http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ > Manager: Kevin Towes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ > This System has been donated by Infopreneur, Inc. > (http://www.infopreneur.net) > > - You are subscribed to the CFUGToronto CFTALK ListSRV. This message has been posted by: "Rick Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe, Please Visit and Login to http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ Manager: Kevin Towes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ This System has been donated by Infopreneur, Inc. (http://www.infopreneur.net) - You are subscribed to the CFUGToronto CFTALK ListSRV. This message has been posted by: "Nolan J. Dubeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe, Please Visit and Login to http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ Manager: Kevin Towes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.CFUGToronto.org/ This System has been donated by Infopreneur, Inc. (http://www.infopreneur.net)
