The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I aim for "as fast as possible" with any "special performance measures."
It's cool that a second is the upper limit, but if I have a report and I can't for the life of me get it faster than five seconds then that's obviously what I'm settling for.
So how will I know if I need to use special measures to get stuff faster?
When I test my own sh*t over and over and the loading times are getting on my nerves I know I'll need to revise some code...
Depends on how often the report is used and how it's presented
Point is, I try to get any page as fast as possible, and if that's five seconds that's five seconds.
If those five seconds piss me off because I have to load it a lot (or are obviously unacceptable) then I'm going to look for special measures such as caching, reusing "expensive" variables, minimizing roundtrips to databases and other services, threading, etc...
Of course I'm a trained professional who can see possible performance bottlenecks ahead of time, so I probably do some optimizations by default.
In a few cases I've had reports that I really couldn't get any faster.
One time I went from 15 minutes (some horrible code that wasn't mine) to three seconds, which turned to about 15 seconds after an update (again, not my code).
Getting those 15 seconds to three again required extensive database work, so we left it at 15 seconds.
15 minutes was absolutely unacceptable, especially since the whole system slowed down for those 15 minutes.
15 seconds was a lot better, but just something we couldn't improve any further without considerable time and effort.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
What pisses me off is when one of my reports never returns the data!
Why does my user report only show one user, Mr. Timeout Exception!?
Been there, done that...
I wish someone would tell Virgin Media that. They have lightening fast broadband (well, at least download anyway), but one of the consistently slowest web sites I have ever encountered. Navigation is not particularly slick either.
My tolerance for how long a page takes to load is based on how important the page is to me.
(And wash out your mind with soap, what you're thinking isn't what I meant!)
So, CP, pages for paying bills online and checking my bank statement have considerable grace time. Pages for news articles don't, particularly as there is usually another link to try. My main goto for e-commerce is Amazon, and they are basically instant. Which is what they want, because the longer it takes for an e-commerce site to get to the "pay" button, the more chance of changing my mind. The "one-click" purchase was a brilliant move on their part to basically eliminate the pause, do I really need this, decision.
Yikes! I just received notice that Windows 10 wants to restart...to install an update...and "improve" my experience.
Wish me luck! Be afraid, be very afraid.
I have my PC backed up and my fire extinguisher at the ready. Here's hoping its not the much dreaded Windows 10 "October" update. Oh no, please no, say it isn't so!
The notice was short on information. Windows Update is also a bit stingy with further information. Contradictorily, it informs me "You're up to date". The history is similarly uninformative, with regard to this notice.
I've read advice from Microsoft not to click "Check for Updates", which apparently triggers some Beetlejuice-like phenomenon...not going to risk that.
So, with this update, we travel once again into the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns.
Folks, this is scary stuff, I'm talking human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria kind-of-stuff!
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue
I've read advice from Microsoft not to click "Check for Updates
That was in the early days of the 1809 update containing FUBARed code, and still available (prior to being pulled in early October); as long as you didn't actively seek it, you wouldn't have ended up with it.
1809's been re-released this last patch Tuesday after (we've been assured) being "thoroughly tested".
I hate to tell you this, but it's still fubar'd! You might want to go read the release notes for it, here[^].
If you're running Trend OfficeScan, you need to install a "Critical Patch" for that before you even try to download the 1809 patch. If you don't, bad things will happen.
I especially love the part where you get a warning that "Mapped drives could not be reconnected" and they show up in with a red X on them. So, if you map and use network drives, you might want to hold off applying this update.
Running a Radeon HD2000 and HD4000? You're screwed.