Re: How to best sort in a pre-defined item-by-item order ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 49737
interpreted = N
texte = On 4/23/03 10:11 PM, John Peacock
wrote:> Your reflexive reaction that more database are more > complex than fewer databases is just another reflection of how ignorant you > are of good programming design. I don't make these things up; much smarter people > than you are I have learned that relational databases are much more > maintainable, scalable, and faster than flat databases, which is what you are > trying to do.Not to turn this into something derogatory...But saying that there is only one real way to do something... And that one way will always outperform another is rarely true.... Except with physics ...lol or at least our understanding of them. I know without a doubt (or as close as I care to back up right now ;-) that if there is no special sorting (which has always been a limitation of listwords) that there are many many occasions when related searches (like the one I pointed out in the last email) on dbs of significant record counts will be slower than 'embedded and limited' data fields (depending on what you need to do with those data cells.And with 100% certainty I can also say when programming for large data sets, very large data sets, yet very much wanting to stay in the DNA RAM system, that large amounts of RAM can be conserved by not relating everything that can be related for the sake of relating it... Often with increased performance... Ultimately extending my shelf life of this product before the data set grows beyond the comfort zone and forces us into ORACLE/SQLThe point is that I personally believe, regardless and separate from Ken might have been asking, that when working with individual limitations (in this case RAM and/or performance) that there is rarely one cookie cutter solution/concept/procedure.Noone is crazy enough to try and stuff everything into one DB... At least I don't think that is the case... Many people do understand the value and logic of relational tables... But embedded data fields (avoiding costly relationships) at times has undeniable benefits. However, when that is complicated by additional code for sorting or relating of the data cells to yet another table, then using this method may ultimately prove slower and thus less effective.But like I said... Not trying to cause a debate... Just pointing out that there are often other reasons for taking one path or another.I suppose I should have prefaced my statements with the fact that I wasn't speaking to the sorting side of the question. Chalk it up to long day and last day before a long long weekend which is so desperately needed ;-)AlexAlex J McCombie New World Media Chief Information Officer Drawer 607 888/892.6379 Fair Haven, NY 13064 Alex@NewWorldMedia.com http://OurClients.comInterface Designer WebDNA Programmer Database Designer------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
On 4/23/03 10:11 PM, John Peacock wrote:> Your reflexive reaction that more database are more > complex than fewer databases is just another reflection of how ignorant you > are of good programming design. I don't make these things up; much smarter people > than you are I have learned that relational databases are much more > maintainable, scalable, and faster than flat databases, which is what you are > trying to do.Not to turn this into something derogatory...But saying that there is only one real way to do something... And that one way will always outperform another is rarely true.... Except with physics ...lol or at least our understanding of them. I know without a doubt (or as close as I care to back up right now ;-) that if there is no special sorting (which has always been a limitation of listwords) that there are many many occasions when related searches (like the one I pointed out in the last email) on dbs of significant record counts will be slower than 'embedded and limited' data fields (depending on what you need to do with those data cells.And with 100% certainty I can also say when programming for large data sets, very large data sets, yet very much wanting to stay in the DNA RAM system, that large amounts of RAM can be conserved by not relating everything that can be related for the sake of relating it... Often with increased performance... Ultimately extending my shelf life of this product before the data set grows beyond the comfort zone and forces us into ORACLE/SQLThe point is that I personally believe, regardless and separate from Ken might have been asking, that when working with individual limitations (in this case RAM and/or performance) that there is rarely one cookie cutter solution/concept/procedure.Noone is crazy enough to try and stuff everything into one DB... At least I don't think that is the case... Many people do understand the value and logic of relational tables... But embedded data fields (avoiding costly relationships) at times has undeniable benefits. However, when that is complicated by additional code for sorting or relating of the data cells to yet another table, then using this method may ultimately prove slower and thus less effective.But like I said... Not trying to cause a debate... Just pointing out that there are often other reasons for taking one path or another.I suppose I should have prefaced my statements with the fact that I wasn't speaking to the sorting side of the question. Chalk it up to long day and last day before a long long weekend which is so desperately needed ;-)AlexAlex J McCombie New World Media Chief Information Officer Drawer 607 888/892.6379 Fair Haven, NY 13064 Alex@NewWorldMedia.com http://OurClients.comInterface Designer WebDNA Programmer Database Designer------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Alex McCombie
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
IE Cookies problem (2001)
email error (2003)
Permission denied for append context (2004)
Is this possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes (1997)
AddLineItem Problem (1997)
[searchString] (1997)
WebCatalog Eating 200% of the CPU (2002)
XML - USPS Lookups - UPS Lookups (2003)
Forumulas.db & Variables (2002)
Images in WebCat (2000)
[WriteFile] problems (1997)
How can I Add several Items into the cart at once? (1997)
SiteEdit NewFile.html ? (1997)
FW: ANother SHOWIF problem (1997)
Changes to the List (1997)
Kill the webcat process (2000)
New command suggestion (1997)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Nested vs conditional (1997)
Formatting dates stored in db (2003)