foxit pdf viewer for .net sdk

.net pdf viewer library

.net pdf parsing library, .net pdf to image, .net pdf library extract text, .net "pdf to excel", ghostscript.net pdf to image example, .net core create pdf, free excel to pdf converter .net, magick net image to pdf, .net convert doc to pdf, .net pdf editor, .net pdf compression, .net display pdf

how to write pdf file in asp.net c#, asp.net mvc pdf viewer free, how to search text in pdf using c#, magick net image to pdf, c# code to save excel file as pdf, count pages in pdf without opening c#, convert pdf to word using itextsharp c#, azure function return pdf, .net pdf compression, asp.net pdf viewer user control c#

0 1 1

Since we insert a row only once, we pay the price of executing the function on the column once, not the thousands of times we query the data While the insert ran two times slower, the query ran many times faster It evaluated the MY_SOUNDEX function a few times instead of almost 20,000 times The difference in performance of our query here is measurable and quite large Also, as the size of our table grows, the full scan query will take longer and longer to execute The index-based query will always execute with nearly the same performance characteristics as the table gets larger We had to use SUBSTR in our query This is not as nice as just coding WHERE MY_ SOUNDEX(ename)=MY_SOUNDEX( 'King' ), but we can easily get around that, as we will see shortly So, the insert was affected, but the query ran incredibly fast.

0 0 0

print pdf software free, pdf password cracker software, pdf to word converter software for windows 7 64 bit free download, barcode font word 2010 free, qr code generator wordpress, word 2010 ean 13

implement core concerns as classes The aspects in the system encapsulate the crosscutting concerns; they stipulate how the different modules in the system need to be woven together to form the final system The most fundamental way that AOP differs from OOP in managing crosscut, ting concerns is that in AOP the implementation of each concern is oblivious to the crosscutting behavior being introduced into it For example, a business logic module is unaware that its operations are being logged or authorized As a result, the implementation of each individual concern evolves independently 151 A bit of history For years now, many theorists have agreed that the best way to create manageable systems is to identify and separate the system concerns This general topic is referred to as separation of concerns (SOC).

The payoff for a small reduction in insert/update performance is huge Additionally, if you never update the columns involved in the MY_SOUNDEX function call, the updates are not penalized at all (MY_SOUNDEX is invoked only if the ENAME column is modified and its value changed) Now let s see how to make it so the query does not have use the SUBSTR function call The use of the SUBSTR call could be error-prone our end users have to know to SUBSTR from 1 for six characters If they use a different size, the index will not be used Also, we want to control in the server the number of bytes to index This will allow us to reimplement the MY_SOUNDEX function later with 7 bytes instead of 6 if we want to.

0 0 0

In a 1972 paper, David Parnas proposed that the best way to achieve SOC is through modularization a process of creating modules that hide their decisions from each other In the ensuing years, researchers have been studying various ways to manage concerns OOP provided a powerful way to separate core concerns However, it left something to be desired when it came to crosscutting concerns Several methodologies generative programming, meta-programming, reflective programming, compositional filtering, adaptive programming, subject-oriented programming, aspect-oriented programming, and intentional programming have emerged as possible approaches to modularizing crosscutting concerns AOP is the most popular among these To learn more about the other methodologies and their history, see the Resources section at the end of this book Much of the early work that led to AOP today was done in universities all over the world.

We can hide the SUBSTR with a view quite easily as follows: ops$tkyte@ORA10G> create or replace view emp_v 2 as 3 select ename, substr(my_soundex(ename),1,6) ename_soundex, hiredate 4 from emp 5 / View created ops$tkyte@ORA10G> exec statscnt := 0; PL/SQL procedure successfully completed ops$tkyte@ORA10G> set timing on ops$tkyte@ORA10G> select ename, hiredate.

0 0 0

1 0 1

2 from emp_v 3 where ename_soundex = my_soundex('Kings') 4 / ENAME HIREDATE ---------- --------Ku$_Chunk_ 10-AUG-04 Ku$_Chunk_ 10-AUG-04 Elapsed: 00:00:00.03 ops$tkyte@ORA10G> set timing off ops$tkyte@ORA10G> exec dbms_output.put_line( stats.cnt ) 2 PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. We see the same sort of query plan we did with the base table. All we have done here is hidden the SUBSTR( F(X), 1, 6 ) in the view itself. The optimizer still recognizes that this virtual column is, in fact, the indexed column and does the right thing. We see the same performance improvement and the same query plan. Using this view is as good as using the base table better even because it hides the complexity and allows us to change the size of the SUBSTR later.

how to read image from pdf file using java, javascript pdf viewer page flip, convert pdf to wps writer online, tiff to pdf converter online