On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Philip Thompson <philthathril@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Wolf wrote: > > ---- Philip Thompson <philthathril@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> Let me start out by saying, I have STFW and read through the list >>> archives. Now that that's out of the way. >>> >>> To speed up our application, we want to implement using SESSIONs in >>> some locations. Beforehand, on every page, we would run approximately >>> 30-40 queries just to get the page setup - user information and other >>> stuff. Now while we can't take away all of the setup queries, we would >>> like to reduce the startup number. >>> >>> Ok, so I've implemented this in several places where information >>> basically does not change from page to page. Jumping to the point/ >>> question... when does it become more inefficient to store lots of >>> information in SESSION variables than to run several more queries? >>> Note, we are actually storing sessions in the database - so a read/ >>> write is required on each page load - it's not file sessions. >>> >>> Now I know this can depend on the complexity of the queries and how >>> much data is actually stored inside the sessions... but initial >>> thoughts? To give you a number, the strlen of the _SESSION array is >>> 325463 - which is equivalent to the number of bytes (I think). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ~Philip >>> >> >> We carry a sh!tload of information in our session, without slowing >> anything down. In fact, it takes the servers longer to run a full query >> then to use the session information. >> >> But we use the $_SESSION information. Our first query sets everything up >> in the session and we take on from there, and use stuff from the $_SESSION >> to actually make the rest of the pages faster. >> >> 30-40 queries just to set up a page? That's an abomination that shouldn't >> see the light of day. >> >> Anything slower then 2 seconds without any interaction back to the users >> will be short-lived.... >> >> Wolf >> > > Even with 30-40 queries upon setup, it's very fast - less than 1 second... > for now. We starting having speed issues in other locations. Hence, we > decided to address every potential reason and possible slowndown in the > future. > > Thanks for your input, Wolf. Any others storing sh!tloads in their SESSION > array? =D > > ~Philip > > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > I'm storing a lot also. I store sessions in the database also, and utilize session_set_save_handler(). Works well, and less overhead. Like you said, you're under 1 second *NOW*. 1 second might actually even be a long time. -- -Dan Joseph www.canishosting.com - Plans start @ $1.99/month. "Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for the rest of the day. Light a man on fire, and will be warm for the rest of his life."
