How would one best go about testing how expensive a complex alias is? Additionally, alongside the discussion on the data warehousing strategies how feasible do you think it would be in a real setup to create a "temporary" Product entity that gets truncated and rebuilt by a service of normalized entities since most of the live ecommerce use of the Product entities are retrieval queries and not create update or delete? This being rebuilt once a day, once a week, once a product line change, etc.
--- David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, this may have undesired side effects that > actually slow it > down and/or make caching less efficient... > > -David > > > On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > I'm curious as to how much of a performance hit it > > would be to create a view entity between product > and > > each langauge (ie ProductViewEN, ProductViewES, > > ProductViewFR, ProductViewIT) using a complex > alias > > for this. > > This would have the benefit of being able to i18n > more > > than just the description and also perhaps jump > start > > the normalization of the Product entity that was > > discussed a few months back so that you don't have > the > > overflow of fields that don't make sense to the > > product type (ie the rental fields for sale > products, > > the product dimension fields for electronic > products, > > etc) > > > > --- Jacques Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> David, > >> > >> Forget it, I was thinking that we may not use > >> anymore the category description field, but I > guess > >> it's needed if we want to keep > >> things fast. > >> > >> So Si, it seems that if you want to remove the > >> description field from demo ProductCategory data > >> it's ok, isn'it ? > >> > >> Jacques > >> > >>> > >>> Jacques, > >>> > >>> Sorry, you lost me. What is the "DB description" > >> field, and what > >>> refactoring and such would this imply? > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> David, > >>>> > >>>> OK, and what about the DB description field > >> always needed and some > >>>> DB refactoring that this (and more eventually) > >> may imply ? > >>>> > >>>> Jacques > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: "David E Jones" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> > >>>>> For "demo" data, the performance doesn't > matter > >> as much. Better to > >>>>> demonstrate and test, at least with one of the > >> fields. > >>>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Jacques Le Roux > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure because as David already > >> explained there are 2 ways > >>>>>> for this. > >>>>>> Quick one : std description field > >>>>>> Longuer one : std description field overidden > >> by data source > >>>>>> content (this implies a default locale that > >> seems ok now) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And IIRW David seemed to keep std description > >> field because it's > >>>>>> quicker. > >>>>>> Actually, if we do according to your > >> proposition is the DB > >>>>>> description field always needed ? > >>>>>> And if we go in this direction maybe some DB > >> refactoring have to be > >>>>>> thought about ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: "Si Chen" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> So should we remove the description field > >> from these > >>>>>>> ProductCategory > >>>>>>> in the demo data? I think so, or how would > >> one be able to see the > >>>>>>> alternate locale description? > >> > >> > > > >
