I do have to agree with Christian and Dale.

Just to let you that I did convert an application from Paradox to Interbase
and in some cases IB was slower than Paradox, but with some tweaking and
patience I was able to overcome the speed issue after looking at all
aspects of it. It's true that if you compare between a local IB server
setup and Paradox, Paradox might win in almost all the cases. I found one
part of my application to be quicker and it was where the Accounts
Receivable grid was calculated(the result divided by time period) (by the
way, it's not an accounting program that this is part of).

I have a client that still has the Paradox version of the software(at least
until I finish the program that will convert his data(over 80 tables)), and
he is reporting the he has to run the small program that I created that
rectifies most data corruption in Paradox at least once every 2
days(sometimes 2-3 times per day) and he's on a network with 8 workstations
connected to the data. Also, my application opens quicker with Interbase
and IBO.

For inserting 12 records at a time, try using the script component and
place your 12 INSERT statements in the script to be run once.

Daniel Rail
Senior System Engineer
ACCRA Med Software Inc. (www.filopto.com)

At 2001-01-11 10:13, you wrote:

>As a new Interbase/IBO user I made a post about the fact that my
>application accessed data much slower after converting to IB and
>asked for any help more advanced users could offer. Although, I did
>get a few attempts to help, most responses were about how silly my
>test was and defending the speed of Interbase and IBO.
>
>This is all nice but the fact is this: I have an accounting
>application that was written in DOS with Btrieve as the database. It
>has been running fine for about 10 years on hundreds of local
>networks. Several years ago, I converted the application to
>Windows/D5/Paradox. Again, it has been running fine except for the
>occasional index corruption by Paradox. When I heard about Interase
>and IBO I converted that application to D5/IB/IBO. The application
>ran fine but every module accedded that data much slower. I assumed,
>based on the many posts I had read about the speed of Interbase, that
>I had done something wrong.
>
>My initial conversion was using IBOTables. I assumed this could be
>the problem since I was not taking advantage of the full power of
>Interbase and IBO using this approach. So I took one module and did
>the conversion to IB_Querys etc.
>
>In this module, every time a new record is added, 3 support tables
>are updated. Two of the support tables have 12 records each added
>and the final support table gets 1 record added for a total of 25
>records added each time a record is added to the main table.
>
>In the Paradox version, this is instantaneous. The Save button is
>clicked, the records are added and control instantaneously returns to
>the user. In the Interbase version, there is a noticable lag.
>
>I then wrote a test program to add 1000 records to an interbase table
>and 1000 records to a Paradox table. The Interbase adds were
>significantly slower. I then posted the basics of the test program
>to see if someone could tell be what I was doing to cause this to be
>so slow. I never intended that this be interpreted as a "real life"
>application or an example of adding batch records. I simply thought
>someone would look at it and say "you need to do this" and my problem
>would be resolved.
>
>Instead, most posts were about how "silly" the test was, how no one
>would actually do this, etc. I did get a few usefull posts and made
>the suggested changes (Using Insert instead of Append, using INSERT
>INTO SQL using Parameters). Problem is, none of these increased the
>speed. I am fully aware that my test program is impractical since no
>one will probably add 1000 records to a file, however, my "real life"
>program does add 25 and IS significantly slower!!
>
>It was never my intent to imply that IB/IBO was slower than Paradox.
>I assumed, and still do, that something I am doing is causing the
>problem. I never intended my post to set off a frenzy of IB/IBO
>defenders.
>
>I made the initial post to the IBObjects group since the group states
>it is a place for both novice and experienced Interbase/IBO users. I
>have found that this group is probably not the best place for the
>novice user.
>
>
>
>eGroups
>Sponsor<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=149861.1280212.2876301.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700007183:N/A=473696/?http://www.newaydirect.com>
>