Hello:

I understand that I have much to learn about IB and IBO. My initial
thought was to do a conversion, get the database in IB format, get
the applications back in service then start learning the finer points
of IB and IBO. However, when the speed suffered to such a great
degree, this plan seemed unfeasable. I realize this may be a stupid
question but here goes anyway: I can understand in a client/server
setup how you would want most of the data manipulation done on the
server to minimize the amount of data being transfered to the
client. So I can see how stored procedures etc. would be of useful.
However, if the application is running as a single user application
or on a local network, how would this make a difference in speed? By
the way, someone posted an example caled Impreved.zip that uses
beginbusy. I downloaded this example and it makes a dramatic
difference in speed.

Thanks

--- In IBObjects@egroups.com, "Jason Wharton" <jwharton@i...> wrote:
> I suggest that you learn how to use a stored procedure which will
handle
> some of those fairly complex data manipulations. Instead of making
IB
> prepare a lot of separate statements you can make one stored
procedure with
> all the logic in it and then prepare it and send it the information
it needs
> and it will all execute on the server.
>
> This is the essence of the difference between PDOX and
client/server is that
> much of the processing can now actually be transferred to the
computer
> instead of forcing it to happen from the client.
>
> Hang in there. People's criticisms of your approach should not be
taken
> personal. Bear with it because they are telling you things that will
> eventually make you wonder how you tolerated using local file based
database
> systems.
>
> If you try and make InterBase do exactly what PDOX does then PDOX
is going
> to seem faster. But, the thing you need to do is come to understand
where
> IB's strengths are and how to tap into them. It is well worth the
time and
> energy you will expend.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Wharton
> CPS - Mesa AZ
> http://www.ibobjects.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SLSolutions@a...>
> To: <IBObjects@egroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:13 AM
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >