IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / Performance is the least of my concerns at this point
Post #415,824
by drook
Picture of drook
12/2/16 2:39:34 PM
12/2/16 2:39:34 PM
Reply
New Performance is the least of my concerns at this point
IMO queries should be written first for correctness, second for clarity, third for performance. (Just like all code.)

Correctness includes returning the right results and maintaining data integrity. You have to do both as an absolute baseline before anything else matters. After that, clarity/readability is far more valuable than performance 90% of the time.
--

Drew
Post #415,852
by malraux
Picture of malraux
12/4/16 10:59:35 AM
12/4/16 10:59:35 AM
Reply
New Until it isn't any more. :-)
But generally I agree. Don't prematurely optimize. Stored procedures are dangerously seductive for that.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
     Are stored procs "hiding functionality"? - (drook) - (23) - Dec. 1, 2016, 09:58:23 AM EST
         wag, the same as a shared library, you dont know where it came from -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 1, 2016, 10:39:13 AM EST
         Interesting question. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Dec. 1, 2016, 10:43:42 AM EST
             Better to manage that sort of problem through services - (malraux) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:29:20 PM EST
         Depends on how they're managed. - (malraux) - (10) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:28:01 PM EST
             And don't forget about sp's providing better performance on the database. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (9) - Dec. 1, 2016, 01:37:54 PM EST
                 That depends - (malraux) - (8) - Dec. 1, 2016, 05:29:11 PM EST
                     For OLTP applications, I disagree, with MS Sql Server anyway. - (mmoffitt) - (7) - Dec. 2, 2016, 11:07:32 AM EST
                         Performance is the least of my concerns at this point - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 2, 2016, 02:39:34 PM EST
                             Until it isn't any more. :-) - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:59:35 AM EST
                         Performance != throughput - (malraux) - (4) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:58:19 AM EST
                             Interesting - (drook) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2016, 11:07:14 AM EST
                                 I've looked at DB scale out, though not recently. - (static) - Dec. 5, 2016, 04:05:45 AM EST
                                 Eventually the amount of work exceeds the capacity of a single machine to do it - (malraux) - Dec. 5, 2016, 09:15:44 AM EST
                             sure, lets take the speed out of the cpu and replace it in multiple small connected units, :-) -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 4, 2016, 05:15:50 PM EST
         Implementation detail, someone else's problem. - (pwhysall) - Dec. 1, 2016, 02:01:23 PM EST
         Who is responsible for what? - (crazy) - (5) - Dec. 2, 2016, 03:11:10 AM EST
             I'm coming down on the side of your data integrity comment - (drook) - (4) - Dec. 2, 2016, 09:53:40 AM EST
                 Sounds like a management problem. - (static) - (2) - Dec. 3, 2016, 05:05:28 AM EST
                     You think? - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2016, 10:02:22 AM EST
                         Not surprised at all. - (static) - Dec. 3, 2016, 10:20:51 PM EST
                 Someone's going to be writing something that deals with integrity. - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 11:03:23 AM EST
         Re: Are stored procs "hiding functionality"? - (mvitale) - (1) - Dec. 3, 2016, 06:08:26 PM EST
             I used utPLSQL in a former life. - (malraux) - Dec. 4, 2016, 10:52:24 AM EST

That will get motion if the package maintainer is a sheep...
45 ms