Which Method is More Efficient?

Hello,

I'm trying to decide which of two methods I should use for a project I am working on. The project involves retrieving data to populate 14 different drop-downs, but what you choose in one drop-down could change what you see in another drop down.

I am contemplating two different ways to do it.

1) Do a SQL Server query every time a drop-down changes. This obviously would get the data as I need it, but I could hit the database many times depending on how often someone changes the values they choose in any given drop down.

2) Do one big query that returns all the data I may possibly need (could return over 1500 records), store that data in the .NET Application Cache, and then use LINQ to filter out that cached data and return the data I need based off user selection.

Which would be more efficient? Is there another method that's even better that I haven't thought of?

Thanks!
Jeremy
infotechelgAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Kent OlsenData Warehouse Architect / DBACommented:
For only 1,500 rows, you'll probably find that you like the performance a lot better if you read them all into your application and do the filtering there.
0
infotechelgAuthor Commented:
Kdo,

Thanks for the response! Interesting. I've always heard LINQ is really expensive, so I'm surprised by your answer. Perhaps I heard incorrectly.

I'll wait a bit before accepting as solution in case anyone else wants to ring in.

Thanks again!!
0
Jacques Bourgeois (James Burger)PresidentCommented:
The idea behind ADO.NET is to get only what you need as much as possible. Less traffic on the network, more efficient use of the memory on the client. Even more so if it is a browser based application. Why do you think that most transactional web sites display the results of a search in chunks of 10 or so items? It's for efficiency.

Holding 1500 pieces of data in memory while you need only 14 is the most inefficient use of resources. And you have to think for the future. This might end up being 15000 pieces of data in a few months or a few years.

Hitting the database multiple time might be a problem when you are in a loop, but your thing is driven by the user, so the number of hits will be very small considering what most modern databases are capable of.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Cloud Class® Course: MCSA MCSE Windows Server 2012

This course teaches how to install and configure Windows Server 2012 R2.  It is the first step on your path to becoming a Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert (MCSE).

käµfm³d 👽Commented:
You might consider a hybrid approach also. You could put your most-frequently accessed items into the cache, and then the lesser-queried objects would be retrieved from the database. You'd want to design this carefully, though, because it could get hairy if you don't strike the right balance.
0
Jens FiedererTest Developer/ValidatorCommented:
Another issue that might influence your choice here is with changes in the base data.   Cached data will reflect the data at the time it was cached, not necessarily the current data....so you might be sticking your users with out-of-date data.
0
infotechelgAuthor Commented:
Thanks, everyone, for the thoughts.

Jens: Regarding cached data, this data won't change that frequently. And if it does, our admin tool resets the app pool in IIS, so the cache would be released and regenerated with new data anyway.

kaufmed: that is a good idea, but in this particular instance, the items will be used equally. I can totally see that solution in a different application however.

james: This is what I was thinking. Storing 1500 records when only a handful of them will be used per drop-down seems to be wasteful. I just didn't know if it was more "wasteful" to do it that way or to hit the database frequently that would return small data sets.
0
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
..but in this particular instance, the items will be used equally
I'd wager to say that the items in the very first drop-down will be used more than the rest  ; )
0
infotechelgAuthor Commented:
kauf,

You're right. The first drop down will always be the same depending on which of the 8 products you pick. Unfortunately, in this case, the first drop down will only 2-3 options so I don't know how much of a benefit it will be to cache that.

In fact, the most options one would see in any given drop down is 7. There could be 1500+ records (SKUs) for one product because the 14 different product configuration option possibilities, but when you start filtering the options down, the number of possibilities drops quickly.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
.NET Programming

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.