|
|
Comments and Discussions
|
|
 |
|

|
Really Nice Article .. BIG Thanks
|
|
|
|

|
Hello Ali Khan, very useful and important tips. Nice work and keep continue to share your thoughts. Just ignore Kikoz68 kind of people
|
|
|
|

|
Have nice information about best practices
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Rather than the try catch finally block you could use a USING block
using (Connection con = new Connection())
{
make your magic
}
This will always dispose of your objects even in the case of exceptions....
|
|
|
|

|
Well it’s a common sense thing that crazy use of exception handling, raising unnecessary exceptions and not thinking about writing better code will cause extra overhead and things will slow down. Exceptions gather all the information e.g. where error happened, which method called which … etc.
I 100% agree with DarrenKopp and author of this article. It will definitely affect performance.
“When you throw an exception you stop current execution, you create a new object with data about the execution, and then you run any cleanup that is needed (garbage collection).
Architecturally speaking, you have to save all local variables, all parameters, current location, then jump to the code that handles the exception, which there is a very good chance will not be in cache, and if the program is large enough, won't be in memory, causing a need to read data from the hard drive”
And I also agree with Ali Khan
“I can give you hundreds of real world examples where you write code to avoid unnecessary exceptions. In any real world large application you will see hundred of lines of code to avoid exceptions/null references like…”
“What is the concept behind Data Validation Controls and Scripting Languages (like Java or VB Script)? Main purpose is to avoid unnecessary overhead, you should check user input for validity before start processing user request. This way you can also avoid unnecessary exceptions”
|
|
|
|

|
I found myself not being in majority of this discussion because I actually agree on almost all Kikoz68's points. I have seen very similar article somewhere else. I do not know the author but it looks like it was just copied and pasted. Some people just copy stuff from books without understanding that most advices and practices from those books only good for homepage or a church voting page, not for real web app. I had very similar experience talking to business analysts/application architects/system architects with 2-3 wireless devices on their belts who carry themselves with a lot importance but what they really are - high class bullshitters. But they love to engage themselves into technology conversations.
And the last thing, everybody's favorite - exceptions. When i started to work with .NET I thought the same way Ali Khan is thinking - true/false, 0/1. On my second year with .NET I changed my approach to application exceptions.
I wander if Kikoz68 has a Blackberry.
|
|
|
|

|
“When i started to work with .NET I thought the same way Ali Khan is thinking - true/false, 0/1. On my second year with .NET I changed my approach to application exceptions”
My main idea behind avoiding and raising unnecessary exceptions was “Don’t completely depend on exceptions and write code that avoids exceptions”
I clearly mentioned that don’t completely depend on exception handling when you can write better code to avoid some exception.
Just like you did after 1st year, you will change your approach after your 2nd year with .NET also, and will agree /realize the importance of writing better code. I can give you hundreds of real world examples where you write code to avoid unnecessary exceptions. In any real world large application you will see hundred of lines of code to avoid exceptions/null references like
if (str != null)
if (obj != null)
if(comboBoxFont.SelectedItem != null)
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(strName))
if (args.Data == null)
if (list.Count > 0)
Open your eyes and look at any real world application you are working on, you will find hundreds of similar lines of code to avoid exceptions. If you can’t find this type of code in your application then you need to go back to school and retake CS 101.
What is the concept behind Data Validation Controls and Scripting Languages (like Java or VB Script)? Main purpose is to avoid unnecessary overhead, you should check user input for validity before start processing user request. This way you can also avoid unnecessary exceptions.
If we should be completing relaying on exceptions handling and shouldn’t care about avoiding/raising unnecessary exceptions then why Microsoft added methods like string.IsNullOrEmpty in .NET framework? Do you thing that after your first year of .NET you learned more than the people who designed .NET framework.
“I do not know the author but it looks like it was just copied and pasted. Some people just copy stuff from books without understanding that most advices and practices from those books only good for homepage or a church voting page, not for real web app”
Well I know what I am talking about and I can defend what I wrote, however there is no way you can justify unnecessary use of exception. As I mentioned above, go find out any real world application that doesn’t use that kind of code. I wrote this article about 21 months ago, and listed some basic things to avoid unnecessary overhead for ASP.NET applications, why don’t you guys post the links to prove that I copied this article?
Keep in mind, these are basic concepts, and basic things are always important/straight whether you are creating a 10 pages or 100 pages website. They are implemented and used in all real world applications. Clear your basic concepts before talking about real world applications.
Some people try to show that they are so smart/experienced that everything written in books, articles has nothing to do with real world apps, and it doesn’t mean anything. They think that only they know what is right and wrong, in reality they are just illiterate and uneducated.
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
Who the hell is this kikoz68 guy..
|
|
|
|

|
Kikoz68 : why don't you write an article if you think or you claim to know more then Ali Khan? its very absurd to see people who don't appreciate what others are contributing to community.
Ali Khan: very well done and i enjoy reading your article... good job man....
Regards
John Mark
|
|
|
|

|
John. You don't need to defend Ali Khan. Kikoz68 definitely needs to go through some anger management program of some sort. Still read carefully what he is saying. Can't wait for Ali Khan to reply.
Alex
|
|
|
|

|
I gave him same advice in one of my thread.
“If you really think that this article has nothing to do with real world scenarios/applications then why don’t you write one with real world application and examples? You can present all your ideas about exceptions, and then we will see how much appreciation you will get, and how many people will agree with you”
Again I will be more than happy to have positive discussion, it always gives chance to learn more. I wrote this article to share/discuss these things with others, which is an integral part of learning process, we all are learning here. However I don’t see that he wanted to discuss some thing, he probably just wanted to fight, and always believe that he is Mr. PERFECT and always right.
If you completely disagree with someone, you have freedom to write your own article/ideas.
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
I agree Ali Khan. Kikoz68 need to control himself. Just wanted you to know that I like your article.
Thanks
Jason
|
|
|
|

|
Hi All
who is Kikoz 68 and what this is all about?
|
|
|
|

|
never mind I found it
Wow those comments are huge ! ))))
|
|
|
|

|
I've already seen some variation of this article on (I think) author's blog and somewhere else month or so ago. It feels like author wants to become a great IT guru so much that he publishes his "tips" everywhere, non-stop. But I think, instead of reading and quoting books from "gurus" like Dino Esposito, you should spend some time developing and maintaining at least a couple of real-life (read - FREAKING HIGH TRAFFIC with lots of data) applications before you dare to teach others. I'll explain:
1. Most of this stuff is so obvious. I mean, explaining that StringBuilder is better than concatenation is more or less like saying "I'm a son of my mom". Implement Ajax whenever possible? Yep, I agree. But UpdatePanel (read - calling page methods asynchronously) has lots of bad side-effects. I'll leave it to author to figure out what they are.
2. I don't want to start on Server.Transfer vs. Response.Redirect. Author clearly doesn't understand a damn thing about it. Let me just say that statement "use the overload method that accepts Boolean" is so lame. 7 years ago, when the 1st .NET version was released, all VB-lovers were screaming in every forum "I get TheadAbortException every time I use Response.Redirect!! Help MS!" MS guys and other programmers were patiently explaining that this is by design, you should catch that exception and do nothing (I'll get to exceptions later). But screams continued. So, just to educate the author: the bool in that overload, if true, will ensure that further execution will be terminated. So, if you pass "false", any code below that line will continue to execute. Let me know, dear author, if you're ok with it. Also, the ASP 2.0 DOES NOT raise this exception any more.
3. Using client scripts for validation? Select Tools/Options from IE menu and disable Java Script. Try now. In general, you GOT to have server-side validation. So, if you have it anyway, why bother with the client? As a side note, one piece of advise: don't use validation controls, have some simple method in C# that would validate your data. Why? Because you seem to be so cautious about your view state and they ADD a lot to view state. Also, don't tell anyone that using RegEx for validation is slow. Even if your book says so.
4. And finally, the favorite topic of all "wanna-be-famous-IT-guy" individuals - Exceptions.
First, ever though about why .NET itself relies HEAVILY on exceptions? Are you saying that framework creators are stupid?
Exception has two purposes: to RELIABLY terminate code execution at any moment and to bubble up the "type" of this termination. Imagine, for example, that you're authenticating your user and it's critical to know exactly why authentication failed. You spent so much typing explaining that we should separate business from presentation. What it means is that there is, for instance, a User object somewhere that has a method called Authenticate. According to you, it should return a bool. Or enum. But real authentication would probably contain several steps, each has to reliably stop execution in case of something and return the explanation why it did so. So the caller could take appropriate action(s). Wrong password? Not in domain any more? Dictionary attack? Etc.
You say that exceptions are more expensive. You bet they are. Loop 100,000 times with two statements on your machine, throw exception in one and don't throw in the other. The one with exception will take about 8 seconds, the other - just 1 second. Scared?
Now, analyze this test. 100,000 users requesting the same resource at the same moment - it's pretty much a DOS attack, i.e. totally different headache. In real life you got something like 1000 users per minute on a large site. In other words, real life doesn't really give us those max numbers. Normally GC cleans up in 0.2 to 2 seconds. Why expensive objects are dangerous? Because they take up memory. Will 1000 users per minute eat up 2-4 gigs (typical) if GC collects on time? Nope, not even close, even if ALL their requests will throw exceptions. So, what's better - to have a crappy meaningless bool returns from business layer or exact reason (type) of the exception on each unexpected situation? Read the word "exception". Something unusual. Talking about validation, how many requests will provide wrong passwords and fail validation (throw exceptions). 5 out of 1000? That's about right. So, 5 is UNUSUAL number. Usually there will be no exceptions at all. AND, no validation controls/larger view state (if we're still on validation subject)!! Because of this, you don't have to be scared that exceptions are heavier than any other approach. In my experience, exceptions perform FASTER and result in cleaner and more MANAGEABLE code than, for instance, if(Page.IsValid) stuff.
I would be GLAD to discuss this further, here or anywhere.
|
|
|
|

|
1- “I've already seen some variation of this article on (I think) author's blog and somewhere else month or so ago. It feels like author wants to become a great IT guru so much that he publishes his "tips" everywhere, non-stop”. You think, hmm…, well your thinking is completely wrong, this is the only place I have this article or any stuff related to this topic.
2- “.NET itself relies HEAVILY on exceptions? Are you saying that framework creators are stupid?” Now regarding exceptions, go and read all previous threads and discussion on this topic before you say something. Also there are numerous articles written by people who designed and development .NET framework, so you think all of them are stupid and senseless. Look at these articles http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/seyhszts.aspx http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998549.aspx#scalenetchapt06_topic22 “Exceptions are expensive. By knowing the causes of exceptions, and by writing code that avoids exceptions and that handles exceptions efficiently, you can significantly improve the performance and scalability of your application.”
It also states, “Exceptions add significant overhead to your application. Do not use exceptions to control logic flow, and design your code to avoid exceptions where possible.”
3- “In my experience, exceptions perform FASTER and result in cleaner and more MANAGEABLE code than, for instance, if(Page.IsValid) stuff”. Your view clearly contradicts with most designers’/developers’ experience, and Microsoft’s own website. Like I said, read the long discussion on Exception handling before you come up with new ideas and waste everybody’s time. By reading previous threads/discussions, you can get an idea of how many people agree with you.
4- People read/write Articles and books for training purpose. Articles give readers basic idea about the topic so that reader can apply those ideas in their specific situation or task at hand. This article outlines some ways/tips for performance and improvements. It doesn’t go into the details of each and every item, it will require books to explain each and everything, not everything can be fully explained in just one article. However it looks like you never went to any school or have sufficient training to understand the learning process. I am managing and designing real word applications for years, however it doesn’t mean that I will upload a real world application on this website. If you really think that this article has nothing to do with real world scenarios/applications then why don’t you write one with real world application and examples? You can present all your ideas about exceptions, and then we will see how much appreciation you will get, and how many people will agree with you.
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
I can try to dig into my browser's history and get links to those articles for you. Two articles I've seen had the same title and were providing absolutely the same tips, point by point (StringBuilder, Server,Transfer, sprocs, exceptions, etc). I even got them from the same source - asp.net RSS feed (this one as well). I can't remember the exact text of each one, but I can assure you that they looked awfully similar to yours. Of course, you'd try to tell me that this is a common knowledge and that's why they looked the same but I seriously doubt that. Again, will try to find them. And don't get me wrong: I'm not discussing your personality or stuff like that. I really believe that you're a great guy and so on. I'm just trying to show where you're wrong. I like the tone of your reply, so I'm sorry if I got a little angry. I guess, too many everyday contacts with people who call themselves "software architects" and can't tell why a code from some sproc will perform the same as the sproc itself if run separately with the same parameter values. Fire up Profiler on some large db and check it out yourself. Result will surprise you. Then please update your article. In my opinion, your article provides very little value and mislead in many ways. This was my point. Regarding my education... Man, you REALLY don't want to go that way, believe me. I'd say only one thing: real education should enable you to think logically and analyze everything you read or see instead of just following the exact text. Now, back to the real stuff.
Exceptions. Please read my comments again. Did I say that exceptions are not expensive? Did I refer to any article that states the obvious? Nope. So, I'm not going to tell you "And did you read that blah.com article??" Instead, I'll tell you how to use the knowledge you got. So, should we avoid using exceptions even in flow control? No. This is where you're totally wrong and this is why I asked if you're saying that framework guys are stupid. If you were in programming long enough, you should remember the now famous "return 1 or 0 from you sprocs as indication that error occurred" wrong notion. I see the same approach in today's code from many guys. They return booleans from their methods as indication of "success" or "failure". If I ask why they wouldn't simply throw a custom exception they would look at me like I'm the baby and say "Oh, don't you know? It's a very bad practice!!" "Why?" "Because MSDN says so". I'm not kidding, I actually had this conversation 3 or 4 times for the past 2 years. As a side note, it turned out that one of those guys simply didn't know that he could create and throw his own exceptions. And, of course, his cube was full of all kinds of framed "certificates". So, are you still saying that we should expect a false from an attempt to divide by a zero?
Problem with exceptions is a logical one. New guys that want to become programmers would read your article, plus MSDN documentation and think "Ok, exceptions are bad, every one who uses them is a dork". Documentation states facts, as it should, but your article is supposed to explain documentation. It should say "Yes, exceptions are expensive, so don't throw them left and right just because you can. But you SHOULD use them if your code is potentially in danger of unpredictability." You seem to miss or ignore my main point: exception is something unexpected, unusual, something that by its nature will not be happening in 50% of all calls. I was serious with the 5/1000 ratio. Books love to illustrate the "pure evil" of exceptions with data validation example. So, I took that example as well. The perfect example of data validation is a user login form in some web application, so let's discuss that scenario:
In my login form I'd need to know if login failed. If yes, I'd need to know why. Because my app stores some valuable user's info, I expect all sorts of attacks and would like to take separate actions depending on the type of login failure. The points of interest here are: is this our previous employee that got fired yesterday and tries to login to screw something up? Is this a simple password mistype? Is this a password guessing attempt? Is this db failure? Bad code? Totally unknown error?
The actions I'm going to perform: in case of employee I'd like to record this and refer him to the "Your last paycheck is canceled" page; in case of password mistype I'd like to show some "Please check your entries" message; in case of password guessing I need to programmaticaly block IP of the request for 30 minutes, even if it'd block user's entire local subnet; in case of db or total failure I need to log this to our central repository, together with stack and exception type, for further investigation and redirect the user to "Oops, sorry" page. And, of course, as you suggested, I got a User object that is common for multiple projects. It's declared in a separate assembly and inherits from the IUser interface which has a layout common for all users, customers and anybody who might have access to any of our apps. To be able to handle all of this I have 2 ways: create a custom exception for each case or create just one exception and have a public enum member in it that would list all those things. I'd choose the second one. Now, while dragging user's request through my login code, I check for all those things and throw that custom exception with correspondent enum member in case of match. In my caller code (wherever it is) I catch that type of exception (Only! All other exceptions should be handled by your global.asax or some http module), switch through emun members to see which one I got this time and actually perform a necessary action, knowing that the user is still not logged in no matter what. Note (and this is important) that any new guy on our team would not be able to unknowingly screw this up simply because he'll get an exception on his dev machine if something that he coded doesn't work as was planned by me.
To finalize: if you app tries to handle all this without exceptions then I'd say that your app worth precisely zero in terms of manageability and reliability. In light of all this, do I care if login failure (read - data validation) would actually be a bit slower and would take 20kb (oh, my!!) more memory?
|
|
|
|

|
“Did I say that exceptions are not expensive?”
If you agree that exceptions are expensive then what are you arguing about? This article emphasizes writing code that avoids exceptions and that handles exceptions efficiently because exceptions are expensive. It’s just a common sense thing, if you have it, why would you raise an exception when you can easily handle it.
I don’t understand what your point is, what are you trying to prove here?
Did this article say “Not to Handle Exceptions” at all? Where it says that?
“If you app tries to handle all this without exceptions then I'd say that your app worth precisely zero in terms of manageability and reliability”
I never said to handle everything without exceptions. As you agreed that exceptions are expensive, this article only suggests Not raising exceptions when you can easily avoid them.
“I can try to dig into my browser's history and get links to those articles for you”
Good luck. I clearly told that code project is the only place I have this article or any stuff related to this topic. I just don’t understand one thing, why you think that I will lie about it? There is no reason for me to deny, if I posted same article on other websites. The only reason you won’t accept because you don’t want to acknowledge your false ideas.
How can you argue about other technical things when you are not even ready to understand or accept your mistakes? You just want to impose your ideas on others and believe that what you think is right, everyone else is wrong. This website is for education and training, there is no way you can acquire education or learn new things if you are not ready to understand others.
I don’t want to spend rest of my life to explain same things over and over. People who know the value of professionalism, ethics, corporate culture, training and education don’t waste their time in any unhealthy conversation.
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
"If you agree that exceptions are expensive then what are you arguing about". Did you actually read what people say about your stuff? I'm arguing about the fact that there are situations (and PLENTY OF THEM) when, even though exceptions have high priority of execution and can reserve some memory for a very short period of time, you should not take it as an iron rule because advantages they provide can be FAR greater than disadvantages. I even described one of those situations but you ignored it.
"this article only suggests Not raising exceptions when you can easily avoid them". Excuse me? "Do not rely on exceptions in your code and write code that avoids exceptions." Can you translate this into anything other than "don't use exceptions at all"? This is what actually forced me to post my initial comment. I've seen silly "tips" before but never with such an aplomb...
"why would you raise an exception when you can easily handle it." And you were questioning my education? These are 2 totally different things - raising an exception and handling it.
"I don’t understand what your point is". Yep, that's exactly the problem. See below, please.
"Your view clearly contradicts with most designers’/developers’ experience, and Microsoft’s own website" (this is a quote from your earlier comment).
Here is a shot of one fatal and ugly error I took not so long ago on "Microsoft's own website": http://64.20.34.90.com/error.jpg
Note that this is NOT some "non-important" site, this is The MSDN you refer to. Let me explain the image in details:
This is not browser's own default error page which it displays when resource is inaccessible (crap happens sometimes). It's the famous "red-and-yellow", solid indication that framework is up and running on that particular IIS and there is NO error handling WHATSOEVER. Not even a reference to a default error page in web.config. Such a lame. I'm not even going to discuss the error itself which shows the level of "experience" of all those "developers" you're talking about (no redundant maintenance service on the site of such importance when you have objects that expire??). You were referring to this site (and, obviously) its creators as a final judgment, correct? Notice, btw, that this is related to exceptions as well.
Here is another one: I was stupid enough to attend one of those MS "training seminars" for former Front Page users (you were referring to them as a good source of knowledge). We were supposed to get info on all new stuff in .NET 2.0. The guy on the stage was a full time MS employee. Introduction paper said that he was one of the top MS programmers in US Southeast (or something like that). Well, somehow we got into a discussion on page events and the guy was telling us (with also a great deal of aplomb - MS Programmer!) that it's simply impossible to cancel a post back on the client if the button was declared as a web control. I gave him a simple line (this.thatButton.Attributes["onclick"] = "return false;";). Amazingly, he was trying to convince me that this line will not work. I left that conference and never wasted my time on stuff like this ever since. It happened in MS building at Lakewood Pkwy, Roswell, GA 30076 (if you need details).
What I'm saying is that you should not blindly trust anything that comes from big names, even if this is MS. Every one should analyze documentation of objects of interest and think why sometimes things are not that straight forward as they appear. Ms is a huge organization, with all typical side effects. In general, I found that MS has only 3 teams that deserve a real unconditional respect for what they do: guys who develop C# compiler, guys who rule the Office development and SqlServer team. All other teams there that I'm aware of are very questionable in terms of their ability to develop a solid product from the ground up. Take the ASP.NET 2.0, for example. In my opinion, guys who came up with the idea of "web site project" (those APP_ folders and stuff) need to be fired yesterday. Programmers complained so much that MS had to release web application project, effectively rolling back the entire APP_ effort. Read about it here: http://west-wind.com/weblog/posts/5601.aspx
Also, I'm curious: why don't you answer my other questions about the rest of your "tips"? Common, have some guts!
I gave you an example of how I would handle certain situation in the context of whatever has been said previously, inviting you to give me your vision and how you would go about it. Instead, I'm getting "the value of professionalism, ethics, corporate culture". Corporate culture is of particular interest for me here. I bet you have a BlackBerry, jeans are a big "no no" in your office, you attend 2-3 pointless meetings a day with 5-6 PMs and button clickers (pardon - Quality Assurance Engineers) who would go on and on on something you don't really care about. And you're totally fine with it. Or am I wrong?
In conclusion: I don't add a fancy signature to my comments. I just call myself a programmer. Wois me if you need to know whom you're talking to.
|
|
|
|

|
“Kikoz68 definitely needs to go through some anger management program of some sort”
It’s only true about you. You are not making any sense and contradicting from your own statements. You need to go see a psychoanalyst to help you little bit with your mental state. There is no way anybody would like to have any kind of discussion with you because you are not aiming for healthy discussions. If you can’t listen to others or understand others how can you answer them or disagree with them? You are a kind of person who wants to understand/listen the way they want to, without caring about what the reality is.
“Here is a shot of one fatal and ugly error I took not so long ago on "Microsoft's own website": http://64.20.34.90.com/error.jpg”
See, anybody can make mistake, they are human too, and probably you too. But unfortunately you believe that everyone is wrong including MSDN/Microsoft and only you are right. You are not ready to accept that you can be mistaken too. I never said that I want to prove myself as an IT Guru, however your attitude shows that you believe that what you believe is true and everything is false. What you think, are you a God of IT or what?
"Do not rely on exceptions in your code and write code that avoids exceptions." Can you translate this into anything other than "don't use exceptions at all"?
Yes but only if you have brain. It clearly means, “Don’t completely depend on exceptions and write code that avoids exceptions”.
Some programmers believe that all they have to do is just have Try/Catch statements everywhere without caring about quality of the code, if exception occurs, let .Net handle it. The whole purpose of not depending on exceptions means write quality code, don’t completely depend on exception handling when you can write better code to avoid some exception.
It is better to avoid some exceptions by writing better code. If you can’t write quality code, don’t misguide others.
I will be more than happy to have positive discussion, it always gives chance to learn more. However look at even your 1st post/thread on this article, you started like you are angry, fought with somebody and ready to kill someone. You didn’t start this conversation to discuss some thing. I wrote this article to share/discuss these things with others, which is an integral part of learning process, we all are learning here. But your attitude, your posts don’t show that. You think you are always right, interpreting everything they way you want to understand. Trying to show that you are Mr. PERFECT. We can have actual discussion if you change your attitude, keep in mind nobody is perfect here, so stop acting like that.
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
I agree with Ali Khan. Kikoz68, if you wana learn then discuss, not fight. Nobody is 100% perfect, even Microsoft Products come with bugs and errors. This article has some good information. It makes sense if you disagree with some thing, however it’s not understandable when you only make irrelevant comments.
|
|
|
|

|
Oh my. This little gold nugget of a "tiff" made my day. I have to thank you both. Where's that stupid smiley face thingy...oh yeah, here it is:
modified on Friday, August 8, 2008 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|

|
That error image is at http://64.20.34.90/error.jpg, sorry
|
|
|
|
|

|
Hello everything well?
Can I translate this article and to write in my community's site?
www.aspneti.com
Thank you.
Fabio Galante Mans
|
|
|
|

|
I am trying to get the value of a field from database.(select expiry_date from users) When I use the
DBReader.GetDateTime(0)- receive the following error:
System.InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid. at System.Data.OleDb.ColumnBinding.ValueDateTime() at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbDataReader.GetDateTime(Int32 ordinal) at Default3.Button1_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)
ANY IDEAS???
|
|
|
|

|
Dunno this may sound pretty corny but have u checked that the field is actually a datetime field.also though u have used DBReader.GetDateTime(0) but what is to the left is it a Datetime object or something similiar
|
|
|
|

|
" when you use the DataReader, you can use the specialized type-specific methods to retrieve the data for better performance" --can you please explain me about this in detail
thanks in advance...
enjoy..
|
|
|
|

|
its of very great help to me ...i am sure my application will boost a lot in performace with it....it has given me a better insite into what i am working on....thank u once again
enjoy..
|
|
|
|

|
Stored procedures don't necessarily offer you any significant performance gain and are not compiled as such anyway. There is a great deal of misuse of the word compile when it comes to store procs. When we talk about compilation wrt stored procedures what we actually mean is that the server has put together or 'compiled' an execution plan. This execution plan can then be reused when SQL server encounters another command that it thinks matches the plan.
using parameterised queries will give you very similar performance to stored procedures. The only real difference with parameterised queries is that rather than simply send the stored procedure over the wire you send the full command text but SQL server will most likely have cached the execution plan and look it up the same it would for a stored procedure.
One thing you should try to avoid is dynamic SQL as this makes your SQL very variable and so you will have more execution plans and potentially each request is more likely to require new execution. if you must use dynamic SQL try to parameterise it where possible.
Added to this using parameterised queries adds a security layer and removes the risk of SQL injection vulnerabilities.
I tend to favour stored procedures where otherwise my application would be forced to go back and forth between the SQL server however I try to avoid offloading business logic to the database server to acomplish this and so it is a balancing act and you usually trade one thing off against the other.
There are of course arguments against using parameterised queries in your application over stroed procedures but I think that is beyond the scope od the point I am making.
----------------------------------
Dan Bayley
www.dbnetsolutions.co.uk
-- modified at 10:44 Monday 3rd July, 2006
|
|
|
|

|
I am using Viewtstate in a different way to boost performance
1. The default Viewstate sux, stoing viewtstate in the inputfield
2. Stroing large thing in viewstate sux as well coze the serilization of view state is too slow
I override these two deficiencies and take viewstate as an advantage to store objects, but it does have drawbacks
In my page, where there is a datagrid with paging on, normally, when you click page 2,3,4... you will ask the db for more information. I use viewstate to store the dataset object so that everytime when you click page 2,3,4,5,6... it does not talk to the db...
1. I override the default view state implementation to store the viewstate in the session
2. I change the session to InProc, THIS WILL STOP THE VIEWSTATE FROM SERLIALIZATION, so the seralization overhead is gone. I have tried to store large object in viewstate with serialization, it took ages. I cannot belive the performance boost of making the viewstate to store in session inproc.
the drawback is that you it does not support multi-server environment. For the memory, no need to worry, RAM is so cheap nowadays, 1 GB of ram will serve you manay many users
BEN BEN
Simple and Happy Person
-- modified at 23:56 Thursday 16th March, 2006
|
|
|
|

|
I was on vacation, sorry couldn’t really participate in the discussions. Arguments regarding exceptions and use of Stored Procedures were really interesting.
Darren thanks for catching a typo in the article.
Overall I am quite satisfied with the feedback I got from you guys.
Thanks
Ali Khan
Muhammad Ali Khan
System Development Analyst
Hertz Corporation
|
|
|
|

|
Hello everyone,
I thought that it might be usefull for everyone really interested in this kind of issues.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/fastmanagedcode.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/highperfmanagedapps.asp
best regards
Tiago D'Herbe
Ergogeste S.I.
http://www.ergogeste.com
http://webportal.ergogeste.com
|
|
|
|

|
In the part where you have
If Not IsPostBack Then
LoadJScripts()
End If
Couple of notes on this. You call a method called LoadJScripts(), which i assume loads some javascript. I would hope that in that method you would be calling statements like
'VB
If Not Page.IsClientScriptBlockRegistered("myscript") Then
Page.RegisterClientScriptBlock("myscript", "<script>alert('hello world!');</script>")
End If
// c# code
If (!Page.IsClientScriptBlockRegistered("myscript"))
{
Page.RegisterClientScriptBlock("myscript", "<script>alert('hello world!');</script>");
}
These become especially crucial when they are within controls that can be used multiple times on the page, or if you would like to conditionally register the scripts. It also applies a more object oriented approach to adding the scripts, rather than say, response.write statements.
------
Darren Kopp
|
|
|
|

|
I believe where it says
' Recommended code
If Not num = 0 Then
value = 100 / number
Else
value = 0
End If
What it should be is
' Recommended code
If Not number = 0 Then
value = 100 / number
Else
value = 0
End If
------
Darren Kopp
|
|
|
|
|

|
That's a very useful common sense article. (with an interesting link that also talks about exceptions being expensive for those obsessed with that)
|
|
|
|

|
Arg. foreach is just as fast as for. Only .NET 1.0 has problems with foreach.
Also, exceptions are not expensive in .NET. Where are people coming up with these things?
|
|
|
|

|
Exceptions have higher priority than normal operations. In other words if exception occurs, web server has to respond to that event on high priority bases, which means more work for the server. That’s why it’s recommended to avoid exceptions. I think Ali is right “If it is possible to detect in code a condition that would cause an exception, do so”.
Too many exceptions can be expansive. Look at this article showing Best practices for Exception handling.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconBestPracticesForHandlingExceptions.asp
|
|
|
|

|
Where in that article does it state that exceptions are expensive?
|
|
|
|

|
"If the event happens routinely, using the programmatic method to check for errors is better. In this case, if an exception occurs, the exception will take longer to handle."
First paragraph after the second block of code.
It doesn't say "expensive" but it does say that it will take longer than a simple verification.
You also must understand that the exception will gather all the information about WHERE the error happenned. That means showing you which method called which method. Exception must probably be using some Reflection and that is slow.
So... if you put that on a web server, of course it's going to slow down things when you get an exception.
Cheers
If someone says "Die mortal!", don't stay to see if he isn't.
|
|
|
|

|
I think that it is more expensive and have heard such from other people as well. When you think about it, when you you throw an exception you stop current execution, you create a new object with data about the execution, and then you run any cleanup that is needed (garbage colleciton).
Architecturally speaking, you have to save all local variables, all parameters, current location, then jump to the code that handles the exception, which there is a very good chance will not be in cache, and if the program is large enough, won't be in memory, causing a need to read data from the hard drive.
If you are using local variables and if statements, you will find that it will execute a lot more quickly.
--------
Darren Kopp
|
|
|
|

|
> I think that it is more expensive and have heard such from other people as well.
You think they are more expensive? Do you have any proof?
> Architecturally speaking, you have to save all local variables, all parameters, current location, then jump to the code that handles the exception, which there is a very good chance will not be in cache, and if the program is large enough, won't be in memory, causing a need to read data from the hard drive.
What's your app doing otherwise? Don't you think during the normal course of your app running it needs to "save local variables (?), all parameters (?), and jump to code that needs to run"?
> If you are using local variables and if statements, you will find that it will execute a lot more quickly.
I will? You have proof of that? Local variables? What does that have to do with anything?
The "Exceptions are expensive" urban myth started back in the C++ days. And it wasn't _throwing_ the exception that was slow, it was the sheer fact that just putting in code in a try...catch block could slow your code down by an order of magnitude.
|
|
|
|

|
Shazam999 wrote: The "Exceptions are expensive" urban myth started back in the C++ days. And it wasn't _throwing_ the exception that was slow, it was the sheer fact that just putting in code in a try...catch block could slow your code down by an order of magnitude.
You are right, adding the try...catch block does not slow down the code. But handling a 0 value in the divisor by catching DivideByZeroException is more costly.
Shazam999 wrote: > Architecturally speaking, you have to save all local variables, all parameters, current location, then jump to the code that handles the exception, which there is a very good chance will not be in cache, and if the program is large enough, won't be in memory, causing a need to read data from the hard drive.
What's your app doing otherwise? Don't you think during the normal course of your app running it needs to "save local variables (?), all parameters (?), and jump to code that needs to run"?
Try learning about how a computer runs before you make broad statements. Yes, your program does have to do that, that is NORMAL progression of code. However, the computer's architecture takes advantage of locality of reference to speed up the process. This means, that when your cpu goes to get an instruction from memory, it knows that the adjacent memory blocks are probably going to be used soon, so it grabs those as well. Guess what, the exception handler is not close to your code that you are running (even though it is when you are typing it). You are going to get a cache miss, most likely a memory miss, and have to go to the hard drive. Going to the hard drive, you may even see a page fault, depending on how large the program is. A simple if statement will execute numerous times faster than an exception being thrown, handling the exception, and possibly continuing on normal code progression.
Shazam999 wrote: > I think that it is more expensive and have heard such from other people as well.
You think they are more expensive? Do you have any proof?
Check out this code project link[^]
-----
Darren Kopp
|
|
|
|

|
DarrenKopp wrote: Try learning about how a computer runs before you make broad statements. Yes, your program does have to do that, that is NORMAL progression of code.
No, you should learn how a computer runs, and you should stop with YOUR broad statements like "Exceptions are expensive".
DarrenKopp wrote: But handling a 0 value in the divisor by catching DivideByZeroException is more costly.
You seem to be seriously confused. First off, if you're going to divide two numbers, before you do that, you should check the input first to see if the two numbers are valid. But there may be times where that check is incomplete, and that's where the DivideByZeroException needs to be thrown.
In this case as well, what's the error code you'd bring back versus an exception? -1? -15? A string like "Can't divide by zero?"
DarrenKopp wrote: However, the computer's architecture takes advantage of locality of reference to speed up the process. This means, that when your cpu goes to get an instruction from memory, it knows that the adjacent memory blocks are probably going to be used soon, so it grabs those as well. Guess what, the exception handler is not close to your code that you are running (even though it is when you are typing it). You are going to get a cache miss, most likely a memory miss, and have to go to the hard drive. Going to the hard drive, you may even see a page fault, depending on how large the program is. A simple if statement will execute numerous times faster than an exception being thrown, handling the exception, and possibly continuing on normal code progression.
First off, we are talking about an article that deals with ASP.NET, so you'd better hope that your app totally fits within available RAM, or else you're in serious trouble off the bat in terms of web server response, so I don't know why you're babbling about cache hits/misses.
Secondly, exceptions are just that - something really bad has happened that more often than not will require the program to stop. If I get a DatabaseNotExists exception, then there's no real point in my app going along.
If you're throwing exceptions like crazy, then you need some serious rethinking.
DarrenKopp wrote: Check out this code project link[^]
So you give me a link that proves my point. Well that sure works well for your case.
-- modified at 17:31 Monday 6th March, 2006
|
|
|
|

|
I think it’s not really hard to understand “why too many Exceptions can be expensive”. However if someone does not believe in common sense then he can find numerous articles on Microsoft website regarding the topic. J.D. Meier, Srinath Vasireddy, Ashish Babbar, John Allen and Alex Mackman (all Microsoft ASP.NET team members) wrote article “Improving ASP.NET Performance”
They wrote
“Exceptions are expensive. By knowing the causes of exceptions, and by writing code that avoids exceptions and that handles exceptions efficiently, you can significantly improve the performance and scalability of your application.”
They also wrote
“Exceptions add significant overhead to your application. Do not use exceptions to control logic flow, and design your code to avoid exceptions where possible.”
Look at this and hundreds of articles on Microsoft official website before calling it an “urban myth” or “broad statement without any proof”.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnpag/html/scalenetchapt06.asp
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
General News Suggestion Question Bug Answer Joke Rant Admin
|
This article lists the techniques that you can use to maximize the performance of your ASP.NET applications. It provides common issues, design guidelines, and coding tips to build optimal and robust solutions.
| Type | Article |
| Licence | |
| First Posted | 17 Feb 2006 |
| Views | 347,097 |
| Bookmarked | 313 times |
|
|