On Sep 11, 1:35 pm, Jonathan Pryor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Below...
>
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:11 -0700, greyman wrote:
> Especially when you consider that .NET LINQ-to-SQL using CompiledQuery
> is 93.06% the performance of a pure SQL query (contrasted with 33%-50%
> the performance, which a 2-3x slower invocation would create):
>
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/ricom/archive/2007/07/05/dlinq-linq-to-sql-perf...
>
> I'm lobbying for CompiledQuery support (as I've suggested before; check
> the archives).
>
> (Now if only I could find time to implement it...)
>
And CompiledQuery support would mean there would be no need for the
QueryCache or that at the very least we'd be able to create our own
cache of CompiledQuery objects and acheive the same thing?
That would be nice indeed.
Greyman.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
