4 ms·
If you really have a loop that is reading from a database at 100ms each time, that's not because of not having optimized it prematurely, that's just stupid.
by rob74 7mo ago
If you really have a loop that is reading from a database at 100ms each time, that's not because of not having optimized it prematurely, that's just stupid.
- lokar 7mo agoAnd yet... :) I think there is just a current (I've seen it mostly in Jr engineers) that you should just ignore any aspect of performance until "later"
- lokar 7mo agoand, I guess, context does matter. If you need to make 10 calls to gather up some info to generate something, but you only need to do this once a day, or hour, and if the whole process takes a few seconds that's fine, I could see the argument that just doing the calls one at a time linearly is simpler write/read/maintain.
- heliumtera 7mo agoGot it. What about initiating a 800mb image on a CPU limited virtual machine that THEN hits a database, before responding to a user request on a 300ms roundtrip? I think we need a new word to describe the average experience, stupidity doesn't fit.
- patrickthebold 7mo agoReminds me of this quote which I recently found and like: > look, I'm sorry, but the rule is simple: if you made something 2x faster, you might have done something smart if you made something 100x faster, you definitely just stopped doing something stupid https://x.com/rygorous/status/1271296834439282690 https://x.com/rygorous/status/1271296834439282690