On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 20:38, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > But, if you knew that you'd never want to do any SQL actions > on that array
My crystal ball is rather foggy. Must need a good waxing. ;-) > wouldn't it execute faster if you just save it as a string? Possibly... but the big question is, which is worth more, the few CPU milliseconds you save, or the hours of programmer-time to make any changes? > And as far as being > clean, I'd think that not creating a table you didn't need was pretty > clean, too. If you're getting overwhelmed with too many tables, chances are your app is too "enterprisey" anyway. ;-) -Dave -- Dave Aronson, President, Dave Aronson Software Engineering and Training Ruby on Rails Freelancing (Northern Virginia, Washington DC, or Remote) DaveAronson.com, Codosaur.us, Dare2XL.com, & RecruitingRants.com (NEW!) Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (me) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
