Hello:

A few days ago I downloaded your project and found the same speed
problem. After reading you post, I downloaded improved.zip and
indeed find that using those modifications I too am satisfied with
the speed of IB.

Thanks much!!!

--- In IBObjects@egroups.com, "zile" <zilez@p...> wrote:
> Did you looked at example on egroup site(improved.zip). I was
satisfied for
> the firtst time with speed off IB.
>
> [zile]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SLSolutions@a... [mailto:SLSolutions@a...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 15:14
> To: IBObjects@egroups.com
> Subject: [IBO] My final post about IB vs Paradox speed
>
>
> 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.