J-C HERON

I didn't feel I was violating the `xxi` rule in this implementation. > xxi. Use of an in-memory cache of Fortune objects or rows by the application is not permitted....

I fully agree with this point @bhauer: > some optimizations that appear at first to violate the spirit of our tests by optimizing "to the benchmark," are in fact something...

For now, for each discrepancy found on the number of requests, there was a solution on the framework side. With Rails, it seems that there is no update performed if...

That's strange. In Rails code, there is no more reason for the same query to be executed twice than in other frameworks (which don't have this problem). On the other...

The rails failure was as much about PostreSQL as it was about Mysql... It's true that this random number thing generates a little extra effort. Nothing prevents adding in the...

> I'm missing something here - are you suggesting that the ORM Rails is using is programmatically avoiding queries to the database that it believes to be a no-op? Like...

I think that all ORMS that practice this optimization have had failures and have corrected their code. The current query control signals this problem, almost systematically ( and surprisingly, since...

In the same spirit, there is also the case of selecting an instance already loaded in the same http request (since the choice of elements to load from the database...

Thanks @nbrady-techempower I just reread @bhauer opinion on this at [Brian Hauer's personal blog](http://tiamat.tsotech.com/unfair-comparisons). I am in no way questioning the validity of the comparisons made; the full results must...

Thank you for your open mind @bhauer ! To answer your questions: - I believe that the **mini-intro** on the results page is fine, as long as that results page...