My problem lies in, that my customer has created somewhere around
5000 articles.
Each of those has on the average of 40 - 50 variants.

And its for each variant I has to do the update / insert.

I could select all articles first, and then for each article select
all the appr. variants.

Then after each 50 articles or so I could do a commit.

Would that increase speed significantly ?

Michael

--- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...> wrote:
> The unidirectional setting certainly reduced memory requirements.
That's
> probably what made the difference for you.
> Hopefully you have a hierarchy in your record schema, so that for
so many
> child records (228,000) you have a structure of parent records.
e.g. rooms,
> inside buildings, inside complexes, inside precincts.
> You could start by selecting distinct precincts, then looping thru
the
> precincts, select all the complexes (for that precinct), then
looping thru
> the complexes, select all the buildings (for the complex), then
looping thru
> the buildings, select all the rooms (for that building)... that way
a select
> will only have the rooms of one building at a time. You'd be very
surprised
> what a speed increase you will get by processing in this way. You
would be
> even better off doing this processing on the server under SP
control.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Vilhelmsen <Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...>
> [mailto:Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...]
> Sent: Monday, 10 February 2003 10:46 PM
> To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ib-support] Re: Out of memory
>
>
> That means, that I should do my select in portions instead ?
>
> Michael
>
> --- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...>
wrote:
> > Sounds to me like it was telling you something very sensible.
> > Let's imagine for a moment that your database table grows over
time
> until it
> > has 50 million records. Does your current design in any way cater
> for this?
> > To select 50 million records (or even 228,000 records) in one hit
> is not a
> > good idea. There are many ways to design your processing such that
> only
> > small numbers of records are snatched off the server at any one
> time. I
> > would seriously think of these ways and ways in which you can
> normalise your
> > data such that there is little or no need to see all records in a
> table in
> > one select. Your performance will improve a hundred or more fold
> too. You
> > might be very surprised.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Vilhelmsen <Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...>
> > [mailto:Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...]
> > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2003 9:12 PM
> > To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [ib-support] Re: Out of memory
> >
> >
> > To answer my own question.
> >
> > I set UniDirectional to true, and the problem was gone.
> >
> > But I still would like to know why I got the error in the first
> place.
> > And if I could do something to avoid it !
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Vilhelmsen
> > <Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...>" <Michael.Vilhelmsen@M...> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have an appl. that contects to an Firebird DB (1.0).
> > > In my appl. I have made a rutine, that select 228.000 records,
and
> > > parse through each of them.
> > > For each record I call a stored procedure that either update
> > another
> > > record or insert a record.
> > >
> > > That'll say it will update / insert up to 228.000 records.
> > >
> > > Does two query both uses the same transaction.
> > >
> > > Before starting I do a
> > >
> > > if not MyTrans.active then
> > > MyTrans.StartTransaction
> > >
> > > After the rutine has run through I do
> > >
> > > MyTrans.Commit
> > >
> > > On a smaller dataset it completes with no error.
> > > But on this bigger dataset (which I doesn't find that big) I get
> > this
> > > error:
> > >
> > > Project xxx raised exception class EOutOfMemory with
message "Out
> > of
> > > memory". Process stopped.
> > >
> > > I get it running both from inside D5 and running my appl. alone.
> > >
> > > I kept an eye on my Task manager and all the time I had at least
> 96
> > > Mb of physical memory, and my swapfile wasn't used that much.
> > >
> > > I have even tried running the program without any other programs
> > > running on my machine at the same time.
> > > Same result.
> > >
> > > Is this caursed by my program, because it doesn't allocate
enough
> > > memory for it self ?
> > > Can I change that ?
> > >
> > > I know in Turbo Pascal 7 I could set some compiler directives to
> > > increase the amount of memory available to my program.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/