> Have you tried using TIB_DSQL or TIB_Script? With TIB_Script, you could
> load all of the file into it and execute it. Also, make sure your

database

> file extension is not ".gdb", WinXP monitors these files for the system
> restore.

No, I hadn't tried either of those, although after looking again at the
descriptions, TIB_DSQL was what I should have been using, rather than
TIB_Cursor. I re-ran my tests using TIB_DSQL, and performance did jump, but
I'm still getting 60% of the performance or so that I was getting out of IBX
(On this mass insert operation.. I haven't run benchmarks of my own beyond
that). I didn't want to try TIB_Script, because I wanted to try and get as
close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I could.
I know about the gdb thing, and it's not an issue. Even if it were, since
the tests for both IBX and IBO were run on the same machine, logic would say
(to me) that the slowdowns due to System Restore would apply to both tests,
hence not be a factor in the final outcome (Other than, "Gee, both of these
insert scripts are slow", which isn't what happened).
Jason's comment about the optimizations being more complete in IBO could
very well be what my slowdowns are because of... I can't think it's because
of the inserts themselves being particularly complex. :) Which points to
something under the hood. that's going on, before the statement makes it to
the server. The processor usage difference between the two transaction
commital styles (Committing after every insert, or committing after every
15,000 inserts) also bears that out, to an extent.

- Jason