SMF Development > Next SMF Discussion
[2.1] Hooks in 2.1
Labradoodle-360:
Having a separate table, does not just outright mean it's going to decrease performance. A loaded row, compared to an optimized, indexed, table that was thought through well, and then fed out and cached smartly, is actually possible to INCREASE performance.
--- Quote from: live627 on October 19, 2011, 08:14:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: Labradoodle-360 on October 19, 2011, 01:24:55 PM ---Definitely it's own table, that's just the smart thing to do, in my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Why?
Consider: Which is more important: performance, or elegance?
--- End quote ---
live627:
So then the hooks would be cached? I still think that storing them in smf_settings will save on a query per page load.
Labradoodle-360:
Adding a query doesn't automatically mean performance decrease. If optimized well it can do just fine.
Fustrate:
There's no reason not to cache the hooks - it's not like they change every page load or two.
feline:
caching of the hooks itself is no problem, but the hook code must run on each page load, else dynamic hooks don't work ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version