|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Best practice ASP SQLcollection of objects. Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of subcategory objects. what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the subcategory info in it. I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an array of objects like so myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class all data is supplied. Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips to the database like this myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database each time a subcategory object is created. Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. Should I worry too much about this overhead? Hi there,
It's quite a picke you got there... lol... Well... I'd advise you to get your SQL profiler out of your pocket and test it by yourself... I would personally just pass the ID and let my method get all the data it needed for it. This way, next time you add another different column you want to get from your database, all you need to change is your method and not all calls to it... but that's about good/bad development and not SQL... Do have a look at Profiler... get the times from it and make your judgement based on that... Cheers Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote: > I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a > collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an array > of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the class > so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class all > data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips to > the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > thanks I know profiler, but a bit to lazy to use it when there is people
that have analyzed thing better then I would who I ca ask, but for now I will just pass the id in this project because its never going to be a scalability problem, but would like to know for further projects what is the cost Show quoteHide quote "Luis Roquette Valdez" <LuisRoquetteVal***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:EE71B2B9-F0F3-4FA9-89CB-3BF505C1CD3E@microsoft.com... > Hi there, > > It's quite a picke you got there... lol... > > Well... I'd advise you to get your SQL profiler out of your pocket and > test > it by yourself... > I would personally just pass the ID and let my method get all the data it > needed for it. This way, next time you add another different column you > want > to get from your database, all you need to change is your method and not > all > calls to it... but that's about good/bad development and not SQL... > > Do have a look at Profiler... get the times from it and make your > judgement > based on that... > > Cheers > > "ThatsIT.net.au" wrote: > >> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >> collection of objects. >> >> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >> >> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >> subcategory objects. >> >> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >> subcategory info in it. >> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >> array >> of objects like so >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >> >> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >> class >> so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class all >> data is supplied. >> >> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips >> to >> the database like this >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >> >> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >> each time a subcategory object is created. >> >> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >> don't >> know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is >> much >> data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row >> from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the >> database >> is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. >> >> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >> >> ThatsIT.net.au wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a The first way is OK.> collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory > class all data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many > trips to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I > don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there > is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only > getting one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved > from the database is the same but there is many connections to the > database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? The second way is bad. It will cost in performance. The third (!) way i OK. It is the same as the second but with an important twist. You only load categories and hand it to the caller. When the caller then tries to access the subcategory information it get loaded. If subcategory information may not be needed or only be needed for one or a few categories, then this lazy loading may even perform better than the first way. Arne
Show quote
Hide quote
"Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message I only put forward 2 ways, so I assume by 3 you mean 2news:49c57ab1$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >> collection of objects. >> >> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >> >> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >> subcategory objects. >> >> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >> subcategory info in it. >> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >> array of objects like so >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >> >> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >> class all data is supplied. >> >> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips >> to the database like this >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >> >> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >> each time a subcategory object is created. >> >> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there >> is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting >> one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the >> database is the same but there is many connections to the database the >> second way. >> >> Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > The first way is OK. > > The second way is bad. It will cost in performance. > > The third (!) way i OK. > > It is the same as the second but with an important twist. You > only load categories and hand it to the caller. When the caller > then tries to access the subcategory information it get loaded. > If subcategory information may not be needed or only be needed > for one or a few categories, then this lazy loading may even > perform better than the first way. > > Arne myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) ThatsIT.net.au wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I explain above what the third method is.> "Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message > news:49c57ab1$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >>> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating >>> a collection of objects. >>> >>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>> >>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >>> subcategory objects. >>> >>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>> subcategory info in it. >>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >>> array of objects like so >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>> >>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >>> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >>> class all data is supplied. >>> >>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>> trips to the database like this >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>> >>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the >>> database each time a subcategory object is created. >>> >>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >>> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where >>> there is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are >>> only getting one row from the database each time the amount of data >>> retrieved from the database is the same but there is many connections >>> to the database the second way. >>> >>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >> >> The first way is OK. >> >> The second way is bad. It will cost in performance. >> >> The third (!) way i OK. >> >> It is the same as the second but with an important twist. You >> only load categories and hand it to the caller. When the caller >> then tries to access the subcategory information it get loaded. >> If subcategory information may not be needed or only be needed >> for one or a few categories, then this lazy loading may even >> perform better than the first way. > > I only put forward 2 ways, so I assume by 3 you mean 2 > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) Arne
Show quote
Hide quote
"Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message I think that pretty much is what I'm doing, only when you call the method news:49c59119$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >> >> "Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message >> news:49c57ab1$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >>> ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >>>> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>>> collection of objects. >>>> >>>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>>> >>>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >>>> subcategory objects. >>>> >>>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>>> subcategory info in it. >>>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >>>> array of objects like so >>>> >>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>>> >>>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >>>> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >>>> class all data is supplied. >>>> >>>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>>> trips to the database like this >>>> >>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>>> >>>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the >>>> database each time a subcategory object is created. >>>> >>>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >>>> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where >>>> there is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only >>>> getting one row from the database each time the amount of data >>>> retrieved from the database is the same but there is many connections >>>> to the database the second way. >>>> >>>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >>> >>> The first way is OK. >>> >>> The second way is bad. It will cost in performance. >>> >>> The third (!) way i OK. >>> >>> It is the same as the second but with an important twist. You >>> only load categories and hand it to the caller. When the caller >>> then tries to access the subcategory information it get loaded. >>> If subcategory information may not be needed or only be needed >>> for one or a few categories, then this lazy loading may even >>> perform better than the first way. >> >> I only put forward 2 ways, so I assume by 3 you mean 2 >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > I explain above what the third method is. > > Arne getsubcategories from the categories object are they loaded but all are loaded at that time ThatsIT.net.au wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message No.> news:49c59119$0$90265$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >>> "Arne Vajhøj" <a***@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message >>> news:49c57ab1$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >>>> ThatsIT.net.au wrote: >>>>> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of >>>>> creating a collection of objects. >>>>> >>>>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>>>> >>>>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection >>>>> of subcategory objects. >>>>> >>>>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>>>> subcategory info in it. >>>>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating >>>>> an array of objects like so >>>>> >>>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>>>> >>>>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to >>>>> the class so that no trip to the database is needed from the >>>>> subcategory class all data is supplied. >>>>> >>>>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>>>> trips to the database like this >>>>> >>>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>>>> >>>>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the >>>>> database each time a subcategory object is created. >>>>> >>>>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast >>>>> I don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver >>>>> where there is much data to pass across. since in the second way >>>>> you are only getting one row from the database each time the amount >>>>> of data retrieved from the database is the same but there is many >>>>> connections to the database the second way. >>>>> >>>>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >>>> >>>> The first way is OK. >>>> >>>> The second way is bad. It will cost in performance. >>>> >>>> The third (!) way i OK. >>>> >>>> It is the same as the second but with an important twist. You >>>> only load categories and hand it to the caller. When the caller >>>> then tries to access the subcategory information it get loaded. >>>> If subcategory information may not be needed or only be needed >>>> for one or a few categories, then this lazy loading may even >>>> perform better than the first way. >>> >>> I only put forward 2 ways, so I assume by 3 you mean 2 >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >> >> I explain above what the third method is. > > I think that pretty much is what I'm doing, only when you call the > method getsubcategories from the categories object are they loaded but > all are loaded at that time The key difference is between getting all subcategories now and only getting those needed when they are needed. Arne
Show quote
Hide quote
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message That's the way I would do it.news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class > all data is supplied. Show quoteHide quote > I don't know why you wouldn't have a sproc with two T-SQL statements.> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips > to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? 1) to select category 2) to select subcategory by category-id assuming that there is a parent child relationship. If you do that with two Selects pulling the data, then you can do a read on category with a data reader building its array of objects. Then you do a Result Set.Move Next and with a new data reader read the subcategories into its array.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arn***@Arnold.com> wrote in message the maintenance, if a column is added, you need to alter code as well as news:OlDcXGoqJHA.4288@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message > news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >>I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>collection of objects. >> >> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >> >> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >> subcategory objects. >> >> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >> subcategory info in it. >> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >> array of objects like so >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >> >> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >> class all data is supplied. > > That's the way I would do it. > >> >> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips >> to the database like this >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >> >> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >> each time a subcategory object is created. >> >> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there >> is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting >> one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the >> database is the same but there is many connections to the database the >> second way. >> >> Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > > I don't know why you wouldn't have a sproc with two T-SQL statements. > > 1) to select category > 2) to select subcategory by category-id assuming that there is a parent > child relationship. > > If you do that with two Selects pulling the data, then you can do a read > on category with a data reader building its array of objects. Then you do > a Result Set.Move Next and with a new data reader read the subcategories > into its array. > depending on the size of the table can be a lot of work when you have many linked classes exposing its collections this way.
Show quote
Hide quote
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message This is not correct. They are not linked objects. They are two individual news:9BD51676-9131-4ABE-90FD-36D45C2F4538@microsoft.com... > > "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arn***@Arnold.com> wrote in message > news:OlDcXGoqJHA.4288@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message >> news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >>>I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>>collection of objects. >>> >>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>> >>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >>> subcategory objects. >>> >>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>> subcategory info in it. >>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >>> array of objects like so >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>> >>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >>> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >>> class all data is supplied. >> >> That's the way I would do it. >> >>> >>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>> trips to the database like this >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>> >>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >>> each time a subcategory object is created. >>> >>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >>> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there >>> is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only >>> getting one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved >>> from the database is the same but there is many connections to the >>> database the second way. >>> >>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >> >> >> I don't know why you wouldn't have a sproc with two T-SQL statements. >> >> 1) to select category >> 2) to select subcategory by category-id assuming that there is a parent >> child relationship. >> >> If you do that with two Selects pulling the data, then you can do a read >> on category with a data reader building its array of objects. Then you do >> a Result Set.Move Next and with a new data reader read the subcategories >> into its array. >> > > the maintenance, if a column is added, you need to alter code as well as > depending on the size of the table can be a lot of work when you have many > linked classes exposing its collections this way. selects and reads of the data that happen in sequence, and the objects are independent of each other. It just happens that you read the data for both tables with one call to the database. You're right that making each object do a separate select for its data is a
loser from a performance standpoint. It's that kind of thing that gave n-tier object-oriented programming a bad name for performance back in the early days when people were working this problem out. The way I do this is I have the collection execute a stored procedure that returns a DataReader with one row for each of the objects that it is going to contain. Then I write a constructor for the class that represents the content objects, that takes a DataRow as its single argument. Each instance of the contained class then populates itself from the contents of the DataRow. One select, and an iteration over the contents of the DataReader, and all the contained objects are populated. Short and sweet. And the container class doesn't have to know anything about how the objects populate themselves (except for the stored procedure, of course). Try it out. The one small downside of this is that the contained object also has to have a stored procedure that selects the same columns, for the case where it needs to populate itself separately from the collection. So there's a small amount of duplicated code in the two stored procedures, and if you change the table or view you need to make corresponding changes in two places. But it's never been a problem for me. Tom Dacon Dacon Software Consulting Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class > all data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips > to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tom Dacon" <tdacon@community.nospam> wrote in message Yes, use a sproc that has two selects in it no inners joins. You have tonews:OugmEYqqJHA.3420@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > You're right that making each object do a separate select for its data is > a loser from a performance standpoint. It's that kind of thing that gave > n-tier object-oriented programming a bad name for performance back in the > early days when people were working this problem out. > > The way I do this is I have the collection execute a stored procedure that > returns a DataReader with one row for each of the objects that it is going > to contain. Then I write a constructor for the class that represents the > content objects, that takes a DataRow as its single argument. Each > instance of the contained class then populates itself from the contents of > the DataRow. > > One select, and an iteration over the contents of the DataReader, and all > the contained objects are populated. Short and sweet. And the container > class doesn't have to know anything about how the objects populate > themselves (except for the stored procedure, of course). > > Try it out. > > The one small downside of this is that the contained object also has to > have a stored procedure that selects the same columns, for the case where > it needs to populate itself separately from the collection. So there's a > small amount of duplicated code in the two stored procedures, and if you > change the table or view you need to make corresponding changes in two > places. But it's never been a problem for me. > > Tom Dacon > Dacon Software Consulting different results sets returned. You use datareader to built the first collections of objects. You do a Resultset.MoveNext and with another datareader, one builds the second set of objects. Yes, short a sweet and you only need to access the data once. In my idea it is all wrong practice. It depends very much if you will update
that data or not. However still is taking the less data as needed is the best way. Selecting column by column is real a bad practice. Cor Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class > all data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips > to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > If you are really so worried about perfomance then it would also be a good
idea to implement caching you should really perform a load test with the expected amount of traffic on your site . My personal opinion is load what you need when you need it, and about all those connections don`t worry they invented connection pooling for that some smart guys at MS have already taken care of that :-) . HTH Michel Posseth Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class > all data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips > to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > "Michel Posseth [MCP]" <M***@posseth.com> wrote in message Well i'm not overerly concerned, but i just wanted to know how bad it it wasnews:e$T54UsqJHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > If you are really so worried about perfomance then it would also be a good > idea to implement caching I will use caching but not in the classes themselves> you should really perform a load test with the expected amount of traffic > on your site . > Now that what I wanted to here, its not the end of the world?> My personal opinion is load what you need when you need it, and about all > those connections don`t worry they invented connection pooling for that > some smart guys at MS have already taken care of that :-) . > This is the way I would like to do it as it makes coding more simple and more elegant Show quoteHide quote > HTH > > Michel Posseth > > > > > > "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht > news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >>I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>collection of objects. >> >> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >> >> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >> subcategory objects. >> >> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >> subcategory info in it. >> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >> array of objects like so >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >> >> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >> class all data is supplied. >> >> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips >> to the database like this >> >> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >> >> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >> each time a subcategory object is created. >> >> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there >> is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting >> one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the >> database is the same but there is many connections to the database the >> second way. >> >> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >> >> > > > Now that what I wanted to here, its not the end of the world? It is always good coding practice to try to keep things as simple as > This is the way I would like to do it as it makes coding more simple and > more elegant possible , also for future maintainebility this pays back With web projects for a fact you are in a luxury position , with a desktop app the user is annoyed after just a few seconds of no response while with a web app the user becomes annoyed after 8 seconds of no interaction . It is hard to tell wich of the 2 solutions would give the highest perfomance in a ASP.Net scenario as solution 2 would consume more memory and thus a recycle of the ASP.NET worker process is more frequent to occure , so what started out as a possible perfomance boost might in the end degrade the perfomance of the app So my opinion would be try to keep it as OOP as possible and keep the thought in mind that the web should be stateless so this means in short a challenge response scenario , MS SQL server is perfect in this scenario as a db backend due to its superior connection pooling mechanism . HTH Michel Posseth Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht news:eIvCGEtqJHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Michel Posseth [MCP]" <M***@posseth.com> wrote in message > news:e$T54UsqJHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> If you are really so worried about perfomance > > Well i'm not overerly concerned, but i just wanted to know how bad it it > was > > then it would also be a good >> idea to implement caching >> you should really perform a load test with the expected amount of traffic >> on your site . > > I will use caching but not in the classes themselves > >> >> My personal opinion is load what you need when you need it, and about >> all those connections don`t worry they invented connection pooling for >> that >> some smart guys at MS have already taken care of that :-) . >> > > > Now that what I wanted to here, its not the end of the world? > This is the way I would like to do it as it makes coding more simple and > more elegant > > >> HTH >> >> Michel Posseth >> >> >> >> >> >> "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht >> news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >>>I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>>collection of objects. >>> >>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>> >>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >>> subcategory objects. >>> >>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>> subcategory info in it. >>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >>> array of objects like so >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>> >>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >>> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >>> class all data is supplied. >>> >>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>> trips to the database like this >>> >>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>> >>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database >>> each time a subcategory object is created. >>> >>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >>> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there >>> is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only >>> getting one row from the database each time the amount of data retrieved >>> from the database is the same but there is many connections to the >>> database the second way. >>> >>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >>> >>> >> >> >
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michel Posseth [MCP]" <M***@posseth.com> wrote in message thanks for your inputnews:ugUa5WuqJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> Now that what I wanted to here, its not the end of the world? >> This is the way I would like to do it as it makes coding more simple and >> more elegant > > It is always good coding practice to try to keep things as simple as > possible , also for future maintainebility this pays back > > With web projects for a fact you are in a luxury position , with a desktop > app the user is annoyed after just a few seconds of no response while with > a web app the user becomes annoyed after 8 seconds of no interaction . > > It is hard to tell wich of the 2 solutions would give the highest > perfomance in a ASP.Net scenario as solution 2 would consume more memory > and thus a recycle of the ASP.NET worker process is more frequent to > occure , so what started out as a possible perfomance boost might in the > end degrade the perfomance of the app > > So my opinion would be try to keep it as OOP as possible and keep the > thought in mind that the web should be stateless so this means in short a > challenge response scenario , MS SQL server is perfect in this scenario as > a db backend due to its superior connection pooling mechanism . > > HTH > > Michel Posseth > > > Show quoteHide quote > > > > "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht > news:eIvCGEtqJHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> "Michel Posseth [MCP]" <M***@posseth.com> wrote in message >> news:e$T54UsqJHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>> If you are really so worried about perfomance >> >> Well i'm not overerly concerned, but i just wanted to know how bad it it >> was >> >> then it would also be a good >>> idea to implement caching >>> you should really perform a load test with the expected amount of >>> traffic on your site . >> >> I will use caching but not in the classes themselves >> >>> >>> My personal opinion is load what you need when you need it, and about >>> all those connections don`t worry they invented connection pooling for >>> that >>> some smart guys at MS have already taken care of that :-) . >>> >> >> >> Now that what I wanted to here, its not the end of the world? >> This is the way I would like to do it as it makes coding more simple and >> more elegant >> >> >>> HTH >>> >>> Michel Posseth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> schreef in bericht >>> news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >>>>I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >>>>collection of objects. >>>> >>>> Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory >>>> >>>> in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of >>>> subcategory objects. >>>> >>>> what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the >>>> subcategory info in it. >>>> I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an >>>> array of objects like so >>>> >>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) >>>> >>>> as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the >>>> class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory >>>> class all data is supplied. >>>> >>>> Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many >>>> trips to the database like this >>>> >>>> myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) >>>> >>>> passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the >>>> database each time a subcategory object is created. >>>> >>>> Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I >>>> don't know. some times these second way is a real time saver where >>>> there is much data to pass across. since in the second way you are only >>>> getting one row from the database each time the amount of data >>>> retrieved from the database is the same but there is many connections >>>> to the database the second way. >>>> >>>> Should I worry too much about this overhead? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Show quote
Hide quote
On Mar 21, 6:23 pm, "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote: There is a performance hit each trip to the database. This may not be> I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a > collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an array > of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the class > so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class all > data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips to > the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? a big issue depending on circumstances. However you could use XML to get the categories and sub-categories from the database in one trip. You can then serialize this XML into your collection using the XMLSerializer class. If you look at my examples (at the URL below)
I use the IDataReader and the .NextResult to hit the database one time. However, I use the (results) to populate objects and child collection objects. Its based on Northwind Customer --> Orders --> Order_Details http://sholliday.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A68482B9628A842A!139.entry I use Controller(or Manager) classes to control the "correct level of deepness" ...... Sometimes I want a list of customers. Sometimes I want a customer with their orders. Sometimes I want a customer and their orders and their order details. That's what the Controller class takes care of. Not too much, not too little, "just right". Code is downloadable and if you check the blog, there is a 2.0 version as well. Show quoteHide quote "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@work> wrote in message news:0F9E6C6C-D2D7-47C3-A0AE-DF1D63852F9B@microsoft.com... >I was wondering about performance implications for 2 ways of creating a >collection of objects. > > Lets say I have 2 classes category and subcategory > > in the category class I have a function that returns a collection of > subcategory objects. > > what I do here is open a reader to a table in the database with the > subcategory info in it. > I then call the subcategory class each loop of the reader creating an > array of objects like so > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id,name,other,other,other...) > > as you can see am passing all the data from the database table to the > class so that no trip to the database is needed from the subcategory class > all data is supplied. > > Now I know that this second way is not as efficient as it make many trips > to the database like this > > myarray(n) = new subcategory(id) > > passing the id only I then have to load the other data from the database > each time a subcategory object is created. > > Now I know that this is a performance cost but how much of a coast I don't > know. some times these second way is a real time saver where there is much > data to pass across. since in the second way you are only getting one row > from the database each time the amount of data retrieved from the database > is the same but there is many connections to the database the second way. > > Should I worry too much about this overhead? > > 
Other interesting topics
how to pass the current user with reportviewer control
LoadControl by type Page Panels Drag 'n Drop support for custom asp.net catalogpart/catalogzone. Get argument with imageclickeventhandler. Control is not showing inherited properties in property grid Programmatically add textbox control with incrementing id Is here a web control to create tasks/calendars in Outlook ? Treeview Databinding Filling the text of Buttons over a public class |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
