Hello, I need to store somewhere one hundred of static ressources text field (internationalization). I wonder if it better to put them in a database or in a hash defined at app startup (in environment.rb) I would go to the second one, but am I right ? Thanks
on 2006-05-15 12:43
on 2006-05-15 13:46
Hashes will be faster. Why not load a hash from a table in environment.rb?
on 2006-05-15 14:39
On 5/15/06, Nuno <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Hello, I need to store somewhere one hundred of static ressources text > field (internationalization). > > I wonder if it better to put them in a database or in a hash defined at > app startup (in environment.rb) > > I would go to the second one, but am I right ? > > Thanks The easy answer is: benchmark :) Hashes of reasonable sizes that you keep in memory will be faster than just about anything else. So, if there are some keyed pieces of information that you use often and all over the place, you indeed might want to put them inside a Hash constant loaded through environment.rb. The Hash could be either plain Ruby Hash (e.g. a constants.rb in /lib, then "require lib/constants" in environment.rb) or something you load through Yaml (which is a bit cleaner). Keeping the Hash in memory would be faster, but there's a memory cost. So if the Hash becomes large, this attitude loses its appeal. Also, it's a good solution for read-only pieces of information, *not* for freely r/w operation (stuff like being thread-safe, locking etc. which the database has for saving you from yourself). And if you don't use that Hash that often, consider an alternative or at least think about clearing the memory space (by deleting all references to the Hash).
on 2006-05-16 00:56
Thank you for your answer, I'll go the hash way (loaded from the DB at app startup) The hash (which will be read only BTW) will not be that huge so I presume that the memory cost will not be to high and will be shared accross all http session