Hans,

Finding out there is a problem via the proof you appear to have to offer
would not at all dissappoint me because I would then have the capacity to
address that problem. That is all that ultimately should matter to anyone is
that problems are addressed.

My only dissappointment would be that I somehow faltered along the way by
introducing some kind of a performance drain without catching it. I know the
intended architecture and what it is capable of so I know I can make it work
as it should. If I broke something in terms of performance then it should
not be difficult to remedy.

Please send the source code ASAP.

Regards,
Jason Wharton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans" <hhoogstraat@...>
To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [IBO] development


> Hello Jason,
>
> As requested I performed all the requested tests with a greatly in size
> reduced database
>
> IBOjects:
> Test 1:
> 15:30:28.500 DataPumping using IBObjects
> 15:30:28.500 Using two IB_Cursors
> 15:32:40.406 Database Maint Completed in 124.579 Secs
>
> Test 2:
> 15:38:47.500 DataPumping using IBObjects
> 15:38:47.500 Using Begin/End Busy
> 15:38:47.500 Using two IB_Cursors
> 15:40:47.125 Database Maint Completed in 111.734 Secs
>
> Test 3:
> 15:41:11.015 DataPumping using IBObjects
> 15:41:11.015 Using IB_DataPump (Yield = False)
> 15:43:09.953 Database Maint Completed in 111.578 Secs
>
> Test 4:
> 15:44:31.875 DataPumping using IBObjects
> 15:44:31.875 Using Begin/End Busy
> 15:44:31.875 Using IB_DataPump (Yield = False)
> 15:46:24.953 Database Maint Completed in 105.687 Secs
>
> FIBPlus:
>
> 15:22:27.718 DataPumping using FIBPlus
> 15:22:27.718 Using two tpFIBDataSets
> 15:22:48.843 Database Maint Completed in 13.812 Secs
>
> Sorry to disappoint you :)
>
> Source Code available upon request, which consists of a 6 line assign loop
> or a one line IB_DataPump.Execute
> plus some bookkeeping.
>
> Best Regards
> Hans
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Wharton" <supportlist@...>
> To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [IBO] development
>
>
>> Hans,
>>
>>> Hi, I wish to share my concern.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to copy all tables and contents from one 128M test
>>> database
>>> to
>>> another database and used some IB_Cursors to loop throught the table
>>> names
>>> and the fields
>>> update loop like:
>>>
>>> with IB_Cursor_Old do
>>> begin
>>> IB_Cursor_New.Append;
>>> for i := 0 to FieldCount - 1 do
>>> IB_Cursor_New.Fields[i].Assign(IB_Cursor_Old.Fields[i]);
>>> IB_Cursor_New.Post;
>>>
>>> Then I downloaded a test copy of FIBPlus 6.5, which seems to be designed
>>> for
>>> many
>>> platforms and all Delphi versions from 5 and up, and merely replaced the
>>> IB_Cursors with
>>> their tpFIBDataset, for the rest using the almost identical coding as I
>>> used
>>> for IBObjects.
>>>
>>> Using Firebird 2.1.3 on the same computer as the copying tests, creating
>>> identical results,
>>> using basic objects in a very basic way
>>>
>>> The total run time using IBOjects 4.8.4 was 32 Mins and 35 Secs (1955
>>> Secs)
>>> The total run time using FIBPlus 6.5 was 1 Min and 32 Secs
>>> ( 92
>>> Secs)
>>>
>>> FIBPlus about 21+ times faster than IBObjects.
>>>
>>> My concern, as a long time supporter of IBObjects since the early
>>> versions
>>> V3.xx,
>>> is the IBObject development going in the right direction ?
>>
>> Yes, it most definitely is.
>>
>> You need to call the BeginBusy() and EndBusy methods when you are doing
>> these kinds of things.
>>
>> Your performance will increase dramatically. This has been a documented
>> and
>> heavily discussed aspect for a long time.
>>
>> In short, you avoid all of the overhead of what it takes for IBO to go to
>> the trouble of informing the system that the database is now actively
>> engaged in processing. This involves changing the status of the screen
>> cursor, among other things.
>>
>> Also, using the Assign() method involves additional overhead. The precise
>> behavior for this method requires that the original contents of the two
>> colums involved be compared and other dataset level flags be adjusted so
>> that the Modified property is only registering a change if there is an
>> actual change in content. Obviously, this is not of concern since you are
>> just processing data in a straight forward manner and not looking for
>> these
>> finer distinctions to work correctly.
>>
>> In short, there is much that SHOULD be done in order to have a
>> technically
>> precise means of interacting with your data that FIBPlus does NOT do. Of
>> course this results in greater performance, but all of that performance
>> is
>> YET available in IBO if you learn to use it correctly while you maintain
>> the
>> far superior technical accuracy in the interactions with your data.
>>
>> Also, the most appropriate way to do this in IBO is to use the
>> TIB_DataPump.
>> I suggest you give that component a go and then come back with your
>> benchmark results. You will find that IBO's performance will be better
>> than
>> FIBPlus to do this task. There's no way it can outperform IBO in this
>> because the TIB_DataPump distills everything down to virtually raw API
>> calls
>> with minimal overhead and it even uses the same buffer space. Your
>> pumping
>> of data boils down to this:
>>
>> Prepare all necessary cursor/dsql statements.
>> Organize all of the column mappings.
>> Look for column assignments that are compatible for sharing buffer space.
>> (DIRECT)
>> Open the source cursor.
>>
>> Begin loop:
>> CALL API TO FETCH SOURCE
>> If non DIRECT buffering then
>> Assign values between those columns.
>> CALL API TO EXECUTE DEST
>> End loop:
>>
>> So, if all of your columns are directly buffer compatible you have a loop
>> of
>> two API calls going on. You cannot TOP that!
>>
>> IBO is not for people who want to just slap together basic routines and
>> expect top notch performance. IBO is for those who are willing to come to
>> know it as if their livlihood depended on it and to always be willing to
>> ask: Am I making the most of this toolset?
>>
>> If I was just doing some quick and dirty things that required no
>> long-term
>> maintenance and were just one-off tasks then a cheap tool like FIB+ is
>> likely the way to do. But, if you have a serious project and you are in a
>> committed relationship to it where all performance you can get with the
>> least amount of effort (aside from some learning curve) is what you want,
>> then you are definitely the right customer for IBO. It is written with
>> that
>> kind of development environment in mind.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason Wharton