>No, it's plain incorrect. Are you sure you know how RVs work?

The situation was a hypothetical one - but one that is very close to what I have dealt with. And yes, I understand how RV's work.

>
I'll try again. If you choose a mechanism to improve performance and Cache has even better performance, the "specifics" of Cache are not something you can ignore if you want your decision to appear to be based on sound consideration of options. I, on the other hand, *can* safely ignore the specifics of Cache if I use RVs. Seems simple to me.
>

Yes, you could ignore the specifics of any backend with RV's. However, the costs in terms of flexibility and maintenance are high. And of course, all of this is with the assumption that it is feasible to use RV's. Multi-table updates are extremely difficult - if not impossible to manage. And, if you are in a shop that requires the use of stored procs, RV's won't do. This is an area that you are ignoring. From a performance perspective, SP's are faster.


< JVP >