Well, it's not exactly a clean approach, but if those are the limits you have to work within, so be it :-)
I suspect you could gain some more performance by using MySQL's multiple select syntax. It's rougly like this: insert into *table* (*field*, *field*, *field*) values (*value*, *value*, * value*), (*value*, *value*, *value*), (*value*, *value*, *value*); and so on :-) Have a look at http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/insert.html for more info. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Bermejo, Rodrigo (GE Infra, Aviation) < rodrigo.berm...@ge.com> wrote: > Hola List /. > > We are facing a preformance issue with a desktop application which > connects remotly to a Mysql / DB ( ping times 300-800ms). > We do not have time to invest in modifications to create a 2-tier ... > Web application > The initial plan was to implement a Client cache or a local DB (mysql > slave or XML files). > > After reviwing the code and the sql logs I figured out there are a lot > of insert/updates and replaces within loops. > Sometimes there are more than 200 inserts statments coming for a loop. > > What I did was to create a long string with all statments separated with > semicolons (batching) and then just send them all in just one statment. > This reduced the major application use case time in 300% > > > I am planning to write some code that can keep all "modification" > statments in memory until a select is needed <so then send first the > commands in memory and then the select> > > Any of you have some experience using this approach /? > Any drawback you can see /? > > Thanks for your comments. > > -r. > -- That which does not kill you was simply not permitted to do so for the purposes of the plot.
