Is there a performance hit when placing your DB connection strings in the machine.config instead of in your application's web.config or app.config?
I feel it should be a negative hit on performance, but surely it should be negligible.
Asked
Active
Viewed 117 times
1
-
4I would have thought the time spent reading config settings whether they be machine; web or app.config to be irrelevant compared to the time it takes to actually open a database connection. – Nov 16 '15 at 12:34
-
This might be a possible [duplicate](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1184187/storing-connection-strings-in-machine-config-vs-storing-them-in-web-config). Please check. – Kaushal B Nov 16 '15 at 12:55
-
@KaushalB I believe the other question is more Security related whilst this question specifically asks about performance – fluf Nov 16 '15 at 13:00
2 Answers
2
The question is rather a non-question.
The machine.config always gets loaded, the app.config (or web.config) when it exists. Given both files are to be loaded, the difference is non-existent.
If you don't have an application configuration, the system can skip the loading of that file - but that difference will obviously be negligible.
CodeCaster
- 147,647
- 23
- 218
- 272
-
Thanks! Figured it would be something like this. Just something I was curious about. – eyesuc Nov 16 '15 at 13:13
0
Looking at the MSDN Documentation it would appear that if there is anything to lose or gain performance wise it would most like gain. Although I doubt it would be noticeable.
The configuration system first looks in the machine configuration file for the appSettings Element (General Settings Schema) and other configuration sections that a developer might define. It then looks in the application configuration file.
fluf
- 1,261
- 2
- 22
- 36