This project is read-only.

SQL vs. XML performance

Apr 24, 2009 at 4:25 AM
Which provider is faster?  Given that BE pretty much only uses the providers for the intial load into memory, does it even matter?

Apr 24, 2009 at 7:52 AM
a) It doesn't matter.
b) There's no way to measure performance differences in a way that is meaningful to many, let alone most, usage scenarios.
c) I'd expect that XML would be faster to pull (it's likely a disk read instead of a network transfer) and SQL would be faster to parse (if only for being less verbose).
d) I'd predict that the performance difference, if you figured out a way to measure it in a meaningful way, would be ultimately insignificant.
Apr 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM
We're running BE 1.3 using the SQL provider.  When we initially launched the blog it had around 130 posts, most of which were very long.  From day one we've seen poor performance, particularly with category.aspx (list posts by category, author, tags, etc).  To bring the performance inline we reworked the SQL provider to retrieve data from SQL using stored procedures rather than doing the lookup from the in-memory collections.  We found this to be significantly faster.

Now we have over 300 posts, most of which are very long.  The performance we're seeing now is terrible, but this problem seems to have occurred almost over night.  This makes me think that it might be something completely unrelated to the provider we're using.