Simple .NET/ASP.NET PDF document editor web control SDK

ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats( user, 'T' ); PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> variable n number Well, when we go to update, we could simply do it in a single UPDATE statement, like this: ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec :n := dbms_utility.get_cpu_time; PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> update t set object_name = lower(object_name); 71952 rows updated. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec dbms_output.put_line( (dbms_utility.get_cpu_time-:n) || ' cpu hsecs...' ); 126 cpu hsecs... Many people for whatever reason feel compelled to do it like this slow-by-slow/row-by-row in order to have a commit every N records: ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec :n := dbms_utility.get_cpu_time; PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> begin 2 for x in ( select rowid rid, object_name, rownum r 3 from t ) 4 loop 5 update t 6 set object_name = lower(x.object_name) 7 where rowid = x.rid; 8 if ( mod(x.r,100) = 0 ) then 9 commit; 10 end if; 11 end loop; 12 commit; 13 end; 14 / PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec dbms_output.put_line( (dbms_utility.get_cpu_time-:n) || ' cpu hsecs...' ); 469 cpu hsecs... In this simple example, it is many times slower to loop in order to commit frequently. If you can do it in a single SQL statement, do it that way, as it is almost certainly faster. Even if we optimize the procedural code, using bulk processing for the updates ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec :n := dbms_utility.get_cpu_time; PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> declare 2 type ridArray is table of rowid;

ssrs code 128, ssrs code 39, ssrs data matrix, winforms pdf 417 reader, winforms qr code reader, winforms upc-a reader, c# remove text from pdf, find and replace text in pdf using itextsharp c#, winforms ean 13 reader, c# remove text from pdf,

This function effectively acts as an evaluator for quotations. It will successfully evaluate only a limited range of quotations (a runtime error may occur if the expression can t be converted to SQL). Another application of quotations is to convert F# code to JavaScript to let you run it in web browsers. This technique is used by the F# Web Tools, described in 14. This might be implemented by a function with a type such as the following:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

type vcArray is table of t.object_name%type; l_rids ridArray; l_names vcArray; cursor c is select rowid, object_name from t; begin open c; loop fetch c bulk collect into l_rids, l_names LIMIT 100; forall i in 1 .. l_rids.count update t set object_name = lower(l_names(i)) where rowid = l_rids(i); commit; exit when c%notfound; end loop; close c; end; /

The primary rationale for F# quotations is to allow fragments of F# syntax to be executed by alternative means, for example, as an SQL query via LINQ or by running on another device such as a GPU or as JavaScript in a client-side web browser. F# aims to leverage heavy-hitting external components that map subsets of functional programs to other execution machinery. Another example use could be executing a subset of F# array code by dynamic generation of Fortran code and invoking a high-performance vectorizing Fortran compiler. The generated DLL would be loaded and invoked dynamically. This effectively means you can convert from a computational representation of a language (for example, regular F# functions and F# workflow expressions) to an abstract syntax representation of the same language. This is a powerful technique, because it lets you prototype using a computational model of the language (for example, sampling from a distribution or running queries against local data) and then switch to a more concrete abstract syntax representation of the same programs in order to analyze, execute, print, or compile those programs in other ways.

PL/SQL procedure successfully completed ops$tkyte%ORA11GR2> exec dbms_outputput_line( (dbms_utilityget_cpu_time-:n) || ' cpu hsecs..' ); 170 cpu hsecs.. PL/SQL procedure successfully completed it is in fact much faster, but still much slower than it could be Not only that, but you should notice that the code is getting more and more complex From the sheer simplicity of a single UPDATE statement, to procedural code, to even more complex procedural code we are going in the wrong direction! Furthermore (yes, there is more to complain about), the preceding procedural code is not done yet It doesn t deal with what happens when we fail (not if we but rather when we).

What happens if this code gets halfway done and then the system fails How do you restart the procedural code with a commit You d have to add yet more code so you knew where to pick up and continue processing With the single UPDATE statement, we just reissue the UPDATE We know that it will entirely succeed or entirely fail; there will not be partial work to worry about We visit this point more in the section Restartable Processes Require Complex Logic Now, just to supply a counterpoint to this discussion, recall in 7 Concurrency and Multiversioning when we discussed the concept of write consistency and how an UPDATE statement, for example, could be made to restart.