diwic2 wrote:

>>> why not keep the database file in a RAM disk
>> But for a read-only DB it would be fine, wouldn't it?
>> So, diwic2, is your DB read only?
>
> No; it is updated often and those changes need to go to disk.

At the Conference, Fikret and I were talking about this, and he had an
idea to keep the database in RAM disk, but declare a shadow file on the
hard disk. So, reads would be quick, and writes would work as usual.

I'm not sure it would work (we didn't test), but maybe it's worth a try.

HTH

--
Milan Babuskov
http://www.flamerobin.org
http://www.guacosoft.com