Re: Efficiency vs. code bloat for SELECT wrappers
От | Colin Wetherbee |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Efficiency vs. code bloat for SELECT wrappers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4766C6B2.6060305@denterprises.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Efficiency vs. code bloat for SELECT wrappers (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: Efficiency vs. code bloat for SELECT wrappers
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Sam Mason wrote: > Luckily I've been able to design most of the programs I work on as > relatively simple layers over a database, I'm not sure if you're able to > work like this. I'm not at liberty to divulge much of the application concept, but consider, if you will, an application like Gmail or any other web-based mail service. I'm venturing a guess that the database code in Gmail scripts isn't overly-complicated, and there are probably a handful of "task categories" that get executed by the application. Folder operations might be lumped into one category, and SMTP operations into another, for example. Each category probably has a few variations, like retrieving an email with or without full headers. Overall, though, I would wager that the front-end, UI-type stuff in Gmail is much more complicated than the database code, especially with all the Javascript it uses (though, I suspect most of that is relatively static code). This is roughly the distribution of code I'm implementing: lots of web stuff with only a few database hits per page, most of which are SELECT queries. So, really, I don't think my application would be considered to be "relatively simple layers over a database", since the UI part will be so full-featured. I doubt I would ever see 5-10% of the lines accessing the database in this application. A better estimate would probably be around 1% or 1.5%. My guess, having written this, is that your approach might be more useful for applications that rely heavily on interaction with a database. I'd appreciate any more comments you have on this, though. Colin
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: