Comments on: Using ColdFusion’s APPLICATION Scope to Stop Beating on Your Database http://www.jasonbartholme.com/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/ Synapses Firing In All Directions Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:32:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Kris Brixon http://www.jasonbartholme.com/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10782 Kris Brixon Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:53:10 +0000 http://www.jasonbartholme.com/2007/11/05/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10782 For most people using cachedwithin will be enough and if you are not going to use QoQ then there is no need to use Application scope. <code>cachedwithin="#createtimespan(1,0,0,0)#"</code> QoQ is much slower than hitting the database, but it is easier and cheaper to scale out the web servers than it is to scale up the database server. On a high load page that needs to be fresh, I would still use cachedwithin but just set the time in minutes instead of hours. If you cached a database query for one minute and there were 10 page views in that minute, then you saved 9 hits on the database for the same thing. For most people using cachedwithin will be enough and if you are not going to use QoQ then there is no need to use Application scope.

cachedwithin="#createtimespan(1,0,0,0)#"

QoQ is much slower than hitting the database, but it is easier and cheaper to scale out the web servers than it is to scale up the database server.

On a high load page that needs to be fresh, I would still use cachedwithin but just set the time in minutes instead of hours. If you cached a database query for one minute and there were 10 page views in that minute, then you saved 9 hits on the database for the same thing.

]]> By: Jason Bartholme http://www.jasonbartholme.com/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10775 Jason Bartholme Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:33:01 +0000 http://www.jasonbartholme.com/2007/11/05/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10775 Hello, thanks for your comment. Yes, even without the QoQ you can hit the server every 24 hours. The QoQ is to simply extract the data you need from the general query that is saved in the application variable. It is just personal preference to use the QoQ. I don't have any hard figures to see if it saves even more resources, but it gives me something to look into. For the content that I serve, it is better (performance wise) if I refresh the query all at once because if the huge amount of data. However, it is possible to refresh the application variable whenever the table is updated. A solution would be to create a CFIF statement that checks for the existence of a refresh variable, then use the CFQUERY tag to refresh the data. Hello, thanks for your comment. Yes, even without the QoQ you can hit the server every 24 hours. The QoQ is to simply extract the data you need from the general query that is saved in the application variable. It is just personal preference to use the QoQ. I don’t have any hard figures to see if it saves even more resources, but it gives me something to look into.

For the content that I serve, it is better (performance wise) if I refresh the query all at once because if the huge amount of data. However, it is possible to refresh the application variable whenever the table is updated. A solution would be to create a CFIF statement that checks for the existence of a refresh variable, then use the CFQUERY tag to refresh the data.

]]> By: Dynamic Developer http://www.jasonbartholme.com/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10765 Dynamic Developer Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:25 +0000 http://www.jasonbartholme.com/2007/11/05/using-coldfusions-application-scope-to-stop-beating-on-your-database/#comment-10765 This is a good informative post. Am i right in assuming that even without the QofQ it will still limit the server activity to once every 24 hours? If that is the case, then the QofQ won't be necessary, will it? The WHERE clause can be added to the main query, and provide the same results. Is there a reason for your preference for using the QofQ, other than just personal choice. Does it save on MORE server resources? Something else to consider... when a new article is actually added, functionality could be built in to automatically update the cached query, so your users would get the new article straight away (not having to wait 24 hrs for the query to re-cache). This can also allow you to lengthen the cached period in cachedwithin, as all new articles will already be added to the cached query. This is a good informative post. Am i right in assuming that even without the QofQ it will still limit the server activity to once every 24 hours? If that is the case, then the QofQ won’t be necessary, will it? The WHERE clause can be added to the main query, and provide the same results. Is there a reason for your preference for using the QofQ, other than just personal choice. Does it save on MORE server resources?

Something else to consider… when a new article is actually added, functionality could be built in to automatically update the cached query, so your users would get the new article straight away (not having to wait 24 hrs for the query to re-cache). This can also allow you to lengthen the cached period in cachedwithin, as all new articles will already be added to the cached query.

]]>