Subject | Re: [IBO] IBO speed vs BDE? |
---|---|
Author | Svein Erling Tysvær |
Post date | 2001-04-18T08:08:30Z |
>I'm in the middle of a project which has been using BDE access for allChuck,
>queries, updates, etc and we need to look at ways of improving
>performance. We have a number of instances where a cascading query is
>made on the record set (about 40K records now, but could grow in the
>next few years to several hundred thousand), i.e. keep querying a
>parent_id of a record to create a tree view or listing.
IBO won't help you at all if you want the IB server to run faster. And if
you're saying that you transfer 40K+ records to do some modifications on
the client this is severely wrong if done interactively with users waiting
(but I guess IBO could be a great help in 'hiding' your design problems).
If you need to do modifications to all records, do it in one UPDATE query
or write a stored procedure. I don't know how familiar you are with
client/server databases and maybe you know this already, but unless you're
dealing with a very small table where speed is not an issue you should
always retrieve only a small subset of the records of the table to the client.
>Recently worked on a portion of the code that goes through the file toThe IB server can be pretty fast - unless each record is big, it should be
>do this and to do all 35K items, it took 5-10 minutes, depending what
>other applications were using memory.
able to process several thousand records per second (on the server,
transfering to a client takes longer).
>My experience has been with Visual FoxPro which would easily be 100x fasterI must admit not knowing FoxPro, but isn't that a desktop database? If so,
>than this.
I'm not surprised - if working directly on a table as a single user and
transferring that approach to InterBase. But add multiple users and/or
transactions, large tables and a properly designed program with narrow
select criteria (the main pitfall for desktop database developers) to a
well-defined database and no desktop database can compare to IB.
>Does anyone have experience in comparing a IBO vs a BDE access speeds toIBO is a lot better than the BDE in almost every area. The BDE is designed
>give me a broad idea of what kind of speed increases we can get by
>replacing the BDE components with IBO?
for desktop databases, whereas IBO takes advantage of IB's capabilities.
I'd say the greatest benefit is there being a lot less unexplainable errors
with IBO and that program development is a lot faster using the native
components. You do get a speed benefit as well, but I guess your main
problem probably is your design which you probably should improve
regardless of whether you use IBO/BDE/IBX/FIB.
HTH,
Set