Chris (and others), thank you for the good explanation! =)
I will try to use database as you recommend, thank you again for the
advices!
Regards,
/Alexandre.
On Apr 20, 2005, at 17:39, Chris Browne wrote:
> I think you're missing two points:
>
> 1. With careful design, the ISAM "wrapper" can _avoid_ most of the
> costs you suggest.
>
> For instance, one might set up a prepared query which would only
> parse, plan, and compile the query _once_.
>
> Further, I'd expect that most of the behaviour could be
> hidden in stored procedures which would further hide the need to
> parse, plan, and compile things. The ISAM-congruent abstraction
> would presumably make it easier to use, to boot.
>
> 2. Dan Sugalski indicated that he actually found the overhead to be
> ignorable.
>
> As a datapoint, that's pretty useful. He actually went thru
> the effort of building the ISAM wrapper, and discovered that
> the overhead wasn't material.
>
> You ought to consider the possibility that perhaps he is right,
> and that perhaps you are trying to optimize something that does
> not need to be optimized.
>
> Remember Michael Jackson's _First Rule of Software Optimization_,
> which is expressed in one word:
>
> Don't.
>
> (And then there's his second rule, for experts: "Don't do it yet.")
