ASP.NET PDF Viewer using C#, VB/NET

The type System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<'key,'value> is an efficient hash table structure that is excellent for storing associations between values. The use of this collection from F# code requires a little care, because it must be able to correctly hash the key type. For simple key types such as integers, strings, and tuples, the default hashing behavior is adequate. Here is a simple example: > open System.Collections.Generic;; > let capitals = new Dictionary<string, string>();; val capitals : Dictionary <string, string> > capitals.["USA"] <- "Washington";; val it : unit = ()

free barcode addin for excel 2010, barcode excel 2010 microsoft, how to create barcode in excel 2013 free, microsoft office barcode generator, microsoft excel 2010 barcode generator, active barcode excel 2003, excel 2010 barcode generator, barcode generator for excel 2010, create barcode in excel free, barcode font excel free download,

18 begin 19 runstats_pkg.rs_stop( 50 ); 20 end; 21 end; 22 / Run1 ran in 4137 hsecs Run2 ran in 4590 hsecs run 1 ran in 90.13% of the time Name STAT...buffer is pinned count <-results trimmed to conserve space STAT...session pga memory STAT...session pga memory max Run1 62 --> 65,536 131,072 Run2 0 0 65,536 Diff -62 -65,536 -65,536

Run1 latches total versus runs -- difference and pct Run1 Run2 Diff Pct 1,852,564 1,865,552 12,988 99.30% PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. The static SQL version ran in 90% of the time as compared to the dynamic SQL version.

> capitals.["Bangladesh"] <- "Dhaka";; val it : unit = () > capitals.ContainsKey("USA");; val it : bool : true > capitals.ContainsKey("Australia");; val it : bool : false > capitals.Keys;; val it : KeyCollection<string,string> = seq["USA"; "Bangladesh"] > capitals.["USA"];; val it : string = "Washington" Dictionaries are compatible with the type seq<KeyValuePair<'key,'value>>, where KeyValuePair is a type from the System.Collections.Generic namespace and simply supports the properties Key and Value. (From the F# perspective, we may have expected this type to be seq<('key * 'value)>, but tuples are not available in the .NET collection library design.) Armed with this knowledge, we can now use iteration to perform an operation for each element of the collection: > for kvp in capitals do printf "%s has capital %s\n" kvp.Key kvp.Value;; USA has capital Washington Bangladesh has capital Dhaka val it : unit = ()

Do we know you have permission to do what you re doing Can we get the data to you in a secure manner

Note Once again, in 10g, there is an optimization due to which code written using dynamic SQL (as in the preceding example) in a loop is soft parsed, in general, only once instead of every time in the loop. Since this optimization was not present in 9i, the difference between static and dynamic SQL performance is even more pronounced in favor of static SQL. For example, against my Oracle9i Release 2, the static SQL version in the example ran in 77% of time and consumed 67% of latches as compared to the dynamic SQL version.

The Dictionary method TryGetValue is of special interest, because its use from F# is a little nonstandard. This method takes an input value of type 'Key and looks it up in the table. It returns a bool indicating whether the lookup succeeded: true if the given key is in the dictionary and false otherwise. The value itself is returned via a .NET idiom called an out parameter. From F# code there are actually three ways to use .NET methods that rely on out parameters: You may use a local mutable in combination with the address-of operator &. You may use a reference cell. You may simply not give a parameter, and the result is returned as part of a tuple. Here s how you do it using a mutable local: open System.Collections.Generic

The following are some reasons besides performance to prefer static SQL: Static SQL is checked during compile time, so more errors are caught during compilation time, making the code more robust. With static SQL, the code dependency information (e.g., which procedure is dependent on which other procedure or table, etc.) is stored in the data dictionary. With dynamic SQL, this is not the case. Code written using static SQL is more readable and maintainable in general than code written in dynamic SQL. It is easier to add to static SQL code as compared to dynamic SQL code. Thus, in general, you should use dynamic SQL only when you cannot use static SQL to get your job done.