Run a test yourself, write a simple page using both. There wont be any difference in processing time, there hasn't been when I have tested, apart from the usual differences when you keep running pages and it changes by a few ms.. As processing time comes back in MS, I can't tell you if it's 0.5ms as I don't know this information.
I am just pointing out that even a few ms is not gonna make any difference to your application, just like removing 2 grains of sand from a beach wont be noticed. And the people that usually say "oh don't do that it's slower" do not sit there and scrutinise they entire application and optimise every bit of code to save every posisble MS. If you like using IIF use it, if not use CFIF, don't change the way you code just cozz some cleverdick knows it's a few MS slower and says don't do it. If we all listened to comments like that we would all have to go and remove every CFMODULE from our code and replace with cfinclude, because eit's faster. Russ Michaels Macromedia/Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer CFMX Hosting Phone: 0845 456 3487 Tech Support: 0906 9607800 FAX: 0709 2212 636 WEB: cfmxhosting.co.uk >Please use the support helpdesk on our web site to submit support tickets.< Join our ColdFusion Developer discussion lists. Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 January 2004 16:50 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > > ok, i follow your maths. but are you sure the difference is > zero? as you said before: > > "it wont even make a 1ms difference to your page if you have > a cfif instead of an IIF." > > so is it 0.5ms, 0.0ms, 0.99ms? i assume you've ran some > metrics on this. > > "Never use IIF - If you can help it, don't use the IIF > function. It is half as fast as a normal CFIF. " > http://www.fusionauthority.com/Article.cfm?ArticleID=2511 > > "The "immediate if" function (IIF) will process nearly two > times slower than a cfif/cfelse block that accomplishes the > same thing" > http://www.phptr.com/isapi/product_id~%7B0661582F-55B1-40C7-8B > 29-61D2E438E89A%7D/articles/index.asp > > etc. so either there is an infinitesimal difference, or it > takes twice as long. > > > Duncan Cumming > IT Manager > > http://www.alienationdesign.co.uk > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: 0141 575 9700 > Fax: 0141 575 9600 > > Creative solutions in a technical world > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get your domain names online from: http://www.alienationdomains.co.uk > Reseller options available! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > "Snake > > Hollywood" To: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: > > kepit.net> Subject: RE: > [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > 21/01/2004 16:27 > > Please respond > > to dev > > > > > > > > > If the page takes 100ms without IIF and 100ms with IIF, it > doesn't matter how many page requests u get, they still take > the same time to render. > > 100 vistors x 100ms still equals the same. > The total combined may add a few ms extra as all the > fractions of a ms add up, but that's like counting grains of sand. > > Russ Michaels > Macromedia/Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer > > CFMX Hosting > Phone: 0845 456 3487 > Tech Support: 0906 9607800 > FAX: 0709 2212 636 > WEB: cfmxhosting.co.uk > > >Please use the support helpdesk on our web site to submit support > >tickets. > < > > Join our ColdFusion Developer discussion lists. > Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 21 January 2004 16:18 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > > > > > > what if you had say 100 sites, each with 100 pages. in > each of those > > pages you use IIF where you could have used something faster. each > > site gets thousands of hits a day. could that not have a cumulative > > effect on cf server's performance? > > > > the whole point of writing code that is marginally faster in > > performance than something else, isn't because it's > super-duper faster > > on one run-through, or that you're only meant to use it in nested > > loops. it's to improve overall performance in the long > run, isn't it? > > > > > > Duncan Cumming > > IT Manager > > > > http://www.alienationdesign.co.uk > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Tel: 0141 575 9700 > > Fax: 0141 575 9600 > > > > Creative solutions in a technical world > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Get your domain names online from: > http://www.alienationdomains.co.uk > > Reseller options available! > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > "Snake > > > > Hollywood" To: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: > > > > kepit.net> Subject: RE: > > [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > > > > 21/01/2004 16:14 > > > > Please respond > > > > to dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate when people start this. > > You will only see any overhead if you use hundreds of IIF > statements > > in a page or in some sort of nested loop. Otherwise the > difference is > > too small to notice, it wont even make a 1ms difference to > your page > > if you have a cfif instead of an IIF. > > > > Russ Michaels > > Macromedia/Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer > > > > CFMX Hosting > > Phone: 0845 456 3487 > > Tech Support: 0906 9607800 > > FAX: 0709 2212 636 > > WEB: cfmxhosting.co.uk > > > > >Please use the support helpdesk on our web site to submit support > > >tickets. > > < > > > > Join our ColdFusion Developer discussion lists. > > Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: EWS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 21 January 2004 10:44 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > > > > > > > Just a quick point. IIF is great but use sparingly. If > possible use > > > CFSWITCH of CFIF as IIf does have a greater processing > overhead. If > > > this is not possible then IIf is fine and does a great job. > > > > > > Just a thought > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:34:25 -0000, Tomo Smith > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > #IIf(GetPatients.wait_time_mins[i] GT 381000, > > > > DE("red"), 'IIf(GetPatients.wait_time_mins[i] GT 375000, > > > > DE("orange"), DE("blue"))')# > > > > > > > > try the iif statement above. I changed your DEs to use > > > double quotes, > > > > and > > > > your inner IIF has single quotes around it, otherwise it > > wont work! > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Osullivan Karl (RKB) Senior Analyst/Programmer" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF - Development Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:27 AM > > > > Subject: [ cf-dev ] Nested IIf functions > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> UHCWT Logo > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Hello > > > >> > > > >> Is it possible to nest IIf statements, as I'm trying to do the > > > >> following: > > > >> > > > >> style="background-color:#IIf(GetPatients.wait_time_mins[i] > > > GT 381000, > > > >> DE('red'), IIf(GetPatients.wait_time_mins[i] GT 375000, > > > DE('orange'), > > > >> DE('blue')))#;" > > > >> > > > >> However, when I run this, the following message appears > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Variable orange is undefined. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Is my syntax wrong? I thought it looked okay. Obviously > > > the above > > > >> is within a <CFOUTPUT> tag. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Karl O'Sullivan > > > >> Senior Analyst/Programmer > > > >> > > > >> Computer & Network Services > > > >> UHCW NHS Trust > > > >> Clifford Bridge Road > > > >> COVENTRY > > > >> CV2 2DX > > > >> > > > >> Contact: > > > >> Tel (internal): 28952 > > > >> Tel (external): +44 (0) 24 7696 8952 > > > >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> Web: www.uhcw.nhs.uk > > > <http://www.uhcw.nhs.uk> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ** Archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%> 40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > > human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -- > > ** Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%> 40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ** Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%> 40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
