On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 March 2010 23:23, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There's the code example from that same link. You may have executed >> the queries asynchronously, but the process of the results are still >> serial. Let's face it, all of our processing of queries are not a >> simple echo. We iterate/loop through the results and display them in >> the desired format. Having execute the query and the processing of >> the result in threads/parallel, you get the real performance boost >> which I've been trying to convey the concept of serial versus >> parallel. > > Actually, you haven't mentioned the processing as part of what the > threads do until now. I see your point though: if you split that part > off, you might gain some performance, that would otherwise be hard to > get at.
Because in the past, when someone mention performance issues, the replies come in with: is DB structure optimized, are queries optimized, is the code optimized? For those in the field long enough and have all that optimized and want additional performance boost, what else are there? Thus, when I mentioned threads/parallel, I don't mean execution of queries, but of everything in the entire app/project where the gain is desired. > I wonder though, if the performance is worth it in the tradeoff for > the maintenance nightmare it is when you split out content processing > between 10 different threads. I wouldn't personally touch it unless I > had no other option, but that's just my opinion. > > Anyway, I don't think either of us will change point of view much at > this point - so we should probably just give the mailing list a rest > by now. Thanks for the posts, it's been interesting to read :) > Agreed. :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php