Subject | AW: [firebird-support] performance question |
---|---|
Author | Olaf Kluge |
Post date | 2012-04-17T06:02:17Z |
Hi Mark,
thank you. I will try the first solution.
Best regards.
Olaf
Your second solution would amount to you creating a database in a
database. It also means that on every request Firebird will have to
retrieve the string as is, and then split that every time. I assume that
using Firebird as a real database and storing the data in separate fields
will yield better performance: you only need to split the data on storage
time, not on each load.
But if you want to know for certain: try both approaches and measure it,
but then you could just as well use a flatfile to store this data instead
of a database.
Mark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
thank you. I will try the first solution.
Best regards.
Olaf
Your second solution would amount to you creating a database in a
database. It also means that on every request Firebird will have to
retrieve the string as is, and then split that every time. I assume that
using Firebird as a real database and storing the data in separate fields
will yield better performance: you only need to split the data on storage
time, not on each load.
But if you want to know for certain: try both approaches and measure it,
but then you could just as well use a flatfile to store this data instead
of a database.
Mark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]