I agree - it's easy to cherry-pick examples that are well-suited to ORDA. The ORDA engine is definitely fast, but our tests show that the classic commands are still faster overall. You just have to write a lot more code.
In my tests in client/server mode (and 4D always demos ORDA in single-user mode), ORDA is usually about 10x faster than equivalent SQL, but still several times slower than classic (and OMG 10x faster! .. but we're talking milliseconds usually). If all you care about is raw speed, then classic 4D is probably still the fastest... but ORDA is very elegant, and it makes development easier and fun. If you get into tokenization vs. strings, then the picture gets muddier... but once 4D gives us the option to have a text file-based structure then a whole new world of tools open up for maintaining and refactoring code (with a steep learning code). Times are changing. 4D is joining the rest of the programming language world (and not forcing us to rewrite....). Jeff > On Apr 11, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Jim Hays via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > I'll disagree a bit on the value of ORDA. JPR showed some examples of how > much faster ORDA can be than the old "classic" way. > I'm really interested in putting these to the test in our vertical market > app. We don't have huge data files, but we do a lot of cross-table number > crunching in a normalized structure that may really benefit. ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
