Currently, the code appears to be quite optimal (or do I say this because I wrote it? You'll never know). Did someone try to instrument DbLinq with a profiler? Pascal.
jabber/gtalk: [email protected] msn: [email protected] On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 19:18, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: > The are used during the query string creation. Each query string. > > Actually parameters are to be kept apart, I'm just not sure about the > way.... > > > > Giacomo > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Justin Collum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is this code that runs frequently? Or is it only used when classes are >> built for dbml? >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> That's surely important, but since that code seem to me quite complex I >>> was wondering if it was the next block to optimize. >>> >>> That said, I absolutely can not waste time... >>> >>> If you already know there is no better way to make that work done, I will >>> go for other place to look. >>> I've already saw that, given that design, the code is as efficient as it >>> can be. >>> >>> But since that they are heavyly used types (and since the Format() method >>> signature is so similar to the String one), I was wondering if we could >>> optimize it by making it faster. >>> >>> May be, by redesign it, if the advantage is big enougth. >>> >>> >>> What do you think about that? I'm completely misleading? >>> >>> >>> Giacomo >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Pascal Craponne <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I wrote those classes, and their main purpose was to handle databases >>>> like Ingres that don't support named parameters. With these classes >>>> parameters can be identified and ordered to provide correct SQL >>>> statements.Until someone finds a more efficient solution, I suggest to >>>> keep them :) >>>> >>>> Pascal. >>>> >>>> jabber/gtalk: [email protected] >>>> msn: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 17:56, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It seem to me that by using plain strings instead of those classes >>>>> would be more efficent. >>>>> >>>>> But may be I'm missing something, so before starting a refactoring >>>>> which could be really complex and had great impact on the existing code, >>>>> I'd >>>>> like to know why it's has been designed so. >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone explain me what I'm missing? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Giacomo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
