Arndt Brenschede wrote:
> More important for me and for my position in proposing
> cayenne internally is performance. I understand and
> support your attitude of postponing performance tuning,
> but maybe for a start we can get prepared statement caching
> into beta?
I remember - did you implement the statement cache like we discussed? Does
it really provide a measurable performance boost? I ask since I'm curious
- I do not know what makes prepared statement creation so supposedly slow.
One important thing about this cache is IMHO that it should be possible to
set its size (0 to disable); other than that I think this is a nice
feature that should go in - if not for b1 then b2 or whenever it's ready.
Passing all existing unit tests & running correctly in the regression app
(once it's working again ;) is the go/no-go criterion as far as I'm
concerned.
Holger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 07:13:00 EST