>>If, however, you are looking to get 1500 insertions per second, you are at

least in a more reasonable order of magnitude. In my own usage, I have been
able to get to 500 to 700 insertions per second, and could possibly have
improved on that, but that range was "good enough" for that application. At
1 million records per batch, if you can maintain 500 insertions per second,
you'll be done in 30+ minutes: is that too slow?>>

I don't mean 1.5 million insertions per second :) 500 to 700 is a little
bit to slow for me yes.
I only say this since the c++ programmers here who are working on another
project have demonstrated 15000 inserts per second onto a local copy and
6000 to 7000 inserts per second to another database on the network. I know
what some of you may be thinking.. have them code something for me. They
are working on another project and have no time for this at all. When I
asked I basically got the attitude that its my dept. I do the coding.

Edwin Epstein

> Continuity Partners Inc.
> 2753 S. Highland Dr.
> Suite 1010
> Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
> (702) 851-7850 Ext. 247
> eepstein@...
>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer.




-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wilson [mailto:dwilson@...]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 4:25 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] RE: At my wits end

> As for my use of tps, I meant transactions per second. I guess I should
> really be saying Inserts per second. I personally have tried commits from
> around 10-10000. The C++ test code was committing every 1000 records.

> >This does EVEN worse than ADO and OLEDB. I received multiple testing
> >programs from potential coders and none of them could even break 100 tps,
> >let alone the 1500 tps i need.

Ed, are you saying that you expect to get 1500 tps, with 1000 records per
transaction, equalling 1.5 million insertions per second? If so, you are
doomed to disappointment.

If, however, you are looking to get 1500 insertions per second, you are at
least in a more reasonable order of magnitude. In my own usage, I have been
able to get to 500 to 700 insertions per second, and could possibly have
improved on that, but that range was "good enough" for that application. At
1 million records per batch, if you can maintain 500 insertions per second,
you'll be done in 30+ minutes: is that too slow?

Dan.







Yahoo! Groups Links