I don't have to create no "jump table". I use the existing table from the DB. In the example of your 600 parameters, assuming it is in a dictioanry array, we just do this:Otherwise known as a "jump table". Here's a list of entry points, for this client jump to this code to do the work. Thank you for the verification of the technique.
eval(clientDict['loginStategry'])
Which has nothing to do with what you quoted. We're talking about database engines. Juggling IO issues is a constant concern on this scale. Cached values are constantly being thrown out because so much data is moving through the system, causing hits to disk and file IO. Our DBA has a PhD in database management. I think he's probably slightly more versed in the particulars than you.Ah, I see. You believe this to be true because you've never worked on a large system. Juggling IO requirements is a constant battle. Ask any DBA for a large system.Even some OO'ers have complained that OR mappers slow things down. Maybe those OO'ers are just not as smart as you, and so have speed problems.
I heard it was possible to cache *entire* Oracle tables in RAM so that there is little or no disk I/O. Maybe there is an oracle bug or your DBA is dumb.See above. He has a PhD. You simply don't understand the issues involved. As I said, ask any DBA for a large system.
I will agree that sometimes caching and other techniques don't work as we expect, and we have to resort to hacky shit like converting tables into giant case lists and the like. But just because an approach creates a problem for situation A, does not necessarily mean we bannish it from the face of the earth. If I find a specific performance bug in Java does that mean all of OO is rotten?This is your main technique. Used on these scales it causes performance problems. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
And given that it causes performance problems, do you have any other suggestions?