Re: SQL Server 2005 - Still not upto it

Aaron [SQL Server MVP] wrote:
> You both have missed my distinction between "designing for performance"
> (which should be a given in any development effort) and "fine-tuning
> performance" (which doesn't need to be a cart in front of the horse).
>
> So go ahead and disagree with me all you like, but I don't think we're as
> far apart as you're implying.
>

It's probably because I don't consider fine-tuning an developement thing: If an application is designed and written for optimal performance, then and only then fine-tuning may happen but, at least for database projects this goes more in the direction of the administrators by balancing the different pools correctly, spreading I/O etc. thus getting the most of the given hardware.

But since most developers I've seen lately fail on the design stage, there is not much so-called fine-tuning going on.

And if you don't mind, I'll quote your original statement:

> Personally, I think there is some value in getting the functionality
> perfected before you start optimizing performance. It's the same approach I
> take with many of my development efforts.

I don't see any fine-tuning mentioned here, nor did you indicate that design for performance was part of getting the functionality perfected.

So I'll happily disagree with you and this will be my last post because I just realized that we're crossposting which I don't do.

Meet me at c.d.o.s if you like.

Cheers
Holger Received on Thu Mar 17 2005 - 02:58:59 CST