/11/2003 18:14
Aan: CF-Talk
CC:
Onderwerp: Re: Another question.
ListGetAt() returns a string, so what you are saying is essentially the
same as
"some string goes here" = "";
--Ben Doom
Che Vilnonis wrote:
> // Loop through the list and define all default
Thomas, Craig...Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Another question.
Try the 'setvariable' function.
ie..
if (NOT isDefined("#listget
ListGetAt() returns a string, so what you are saying is essentially the
same as
"some string goes here" = "";
which is not a legal command. If you had a structure predefined, let's
call it Errors, you could do somethinglike
Errors[listgetat(errorflags, i)] = "";
--Ben Doom
Che Vilnonis wrot
Try the 'setvariable' function.
ie..
if (NOT isDefined("#listgetat(ErrorFlags,i)#")) {
setvariable(listgetat(ErrorFlags,i),"");}
-Original Message-
From: Che Vilnonis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 November 2003 17:04
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Another question.
Hello agai
On Friday 07 Nov 2003 17:04 pm, Che Vilnonis wrote:
> if (NOT isDefined("#listgetat(ErrorFlags,i)#")) {listgetat(ErrorFlags,i) =
You can't use listGetAt to set elements in arrays, it's only job is to return
the contents at a position.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(
On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 21:49 US/Pacific, Raymond Camden wrote:
> When you pass 2-N roles to access, or to isUserInRoles(), CF treats it
> as an "AND" list - i.e., the user must be in ALL roles. To get around
> this, you don't use access=, instead you write your own code:
An alternative is to h
When you pass 2-N roles to access, or to isUserInRoles(), CF treats it
as an "AND" list - i.e., the user must be in ALL roles. To get around
this, you don't use access=, instead you write your own code:
FYI, I wrote a UDF that will allow you to do:
I'm not 100% sure of the name and I'm too la
.com
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Another Question
> Would that be
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Another Question
> CF Administrator
> Data Sources
> ODBC Data Sources
> Click on the data source you wish to change
> uncheck trusted connection
> Click on CF settings button
> Add Username and Password
>
> -Ori
CF Administrator
Data Sources
ODBC Data Sources
Click on the data source you wish to change
uncheck trusted connection
Click on CF settings button
> In any case, if you're concerned about performance, there are places that
> are far better to examine, such as your database queries. Have you run
> SHOWPLAN with them (if you're using SQL Server, for instance)? Are you
> testing your stored procedure performance? Are you updating DB statistics?
> > > ok... so when it comes to performance, it's better to use
> > > strutctures than arrays and both of those are better than
> > > lists. But what about queries? Queries that are generated
> > > using QueryNew as opposed to SQL statements.
...
> > Incorrect -
> > Arrays are faster by a factor o
Yup...from what I understand, this is an area that they're working on
improving for the next version of ColdFusion.
-Kev
> -Original Message-
> From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 11:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re:
>your tests suggest looping through lists performs slower than other data
>structures. however, what about list functions like ListGetAt()? list
>functions are a large reason why i choose lists over arrays most of the
>time.
And what about indexed arrays? How do they compare to the speed of
stru
I thought folks have used a Structure to store a database
table in memory to speed up queries.
Is there a faster way to do this than using a Structure?
best, paul
At 03:14 PM 6/2/00 +, you wrote:
>Incorrect -
>Arrays are faster by a factor of about 4. Structures are really slow.
-
I can't say I've ever compared them, however, the information was something
that came from a Performance Tips session by Ben Forta at a recent
developer conference. Structures, Arrays and Lists, in that order.
At 15:14 2/06/00 +, you wrote:
>Incorrect -
>Arrays are faster by a factor of
> -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:32 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Another question on performance -- better than lists?
> >
> >
> > I just ran some tests, and
Mike,
Lists are slower because CF has to process the string character by
character looking for delimiters.
At 10:20 1/06/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > ok... so when it comes to performance, it's better to use
> > strutctures than
> > arrays and both of those are better than lists.
>
>i thought list
Chris,
I don't have any test code/results to share with you but I would be
interested in looking at your test code.
Thanks
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Chris Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Another que
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Another question on performance -- better than lists?
>
>
> I just ran some tests, and was surprised by the results.
>
> Caveats:
>
> 1) These are simple looping tests, a
Incorrect -
Arrays are faster by a factor of about 4. Structures are really slow.
>If the "extra fields" are computed from other fields in the SQL query
>and/or external data (known at the time of the query), you might
>consider computing these fields as part of the SQL query itself...
>using
TECTED]
Subject: RE: Another question on performance -- better than lists?
> ok... so when it comes to performance, it's better to use
> strutctures than
> arrays and both of those are better than lists.
i thought lists were always fastest. is this not true
> i thought lists were always fastest. is this not true? when did this
happen?
It is my understanding that lists are stored in memory as string values, and
that looping through a list (or direct access of a specific list element)
ultimately results in a character-by-character iteration through th
> ok... so when it comes to performance, it's better to use
> strutctures than
> arrays and both of those are better than lists.
i thought lists were always fastest. is this not true? when did this happen?
mike
--
Archi
Thank for your post Dick.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff I'm doing I can't do in the stored
procedures... For various reasons, I'm developing on Access 2000, and will
then port over to SQL Server before the site goes live. I can call stored
procedures in Access 2000, but they don't handle
If the "extra fields" are computed from other fields in the SQL query
and/or external data (known at the time of the query), you might
consider computing these fields as part of the SQL query itself...
using scalar functions or T/SQL statements (SQL Server).
From what I have heard/read/experi
26 matches
Mail list logo
