"Holger Baer" <holger.baer_at_science-computing.de> wrote in message
news:d1bgsk$5ci$1_at_news.BelWue.DE...
> 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
Agree, Performance is part of the day to day job and not something you "bolt
on" later. That said, everything is a balance, but one should keep focus on
performance as a day to day part of the job.
Jim
Received on Thu Mar 17 2005 - 09:16:03 CST
