The most important thing I know about performance is that until you
know with proof from tests you're just guessing, and even with lots of
experience acting on a guess can hurt as much as help. In fact, ask
anyone with a lot of profiling experience and they'll know based on
lots of wrong guesses that it is useless to try to optimize without
tests, and also without tests you never know if you did any good or
not (or did any harm...).
So, if this is something that interests you I would invite you to do
some testing and report the differences in performance and storage
impact for a few different scenarios. Based on that we can have a real
discussion about it and make some decisions.
-David
On Feb 9, 2009, at 2:22 AM, madppiper wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> while taking a closer look at the fieldtypemysql.xml file i noticed
> that we
> are using predominantly varchars, which got me thinking. I know out
> of my
> own experience (and from several authors), that the use of dynamic
> datatypes
> results in increased query times. A well formatted database table
> may in
> times be up to 6x the original speed on update & delete functions...
>
> From my point of view, there is really no need for us to stick to
> varchars
> and blobs anyway. We are already delimiting the size of the varchar
> field
> (20 chars, 100m or 255) and could do the very same with chars as
> well. I
> know that this may result in bigger overall filesizes for the
> database and I
> am fully aware of that downfall, but I think that we could gain alot
> from
> this change...
>
>
> Also: I know that this only takes effect if we change ALL the
> dynamic fields
> to static ones, a combination of both will not really have an effect
> at all.
>
>
> So what are your thoughts on this?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Discussion%3A-Mysql-Db-Performance-tp21909393p21909393.html> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Locked
