But it seems like using the cache option is slower than using the log option. The log option took 15-20 seconds whereas the cache option did not finish in 2 minutes. Both timing tests were done with the same source dataset. The goal is to improve processing times.
Fred Ames Wanda Application Development Voice 415.477.7339, Pager 888.991.6253 "These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Wells Fargo." -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 09:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [analog-help] large log files - long processing times Yes, the cache option is the right thing. But you might want to investigate the *LOWMEM options too. -- Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/ "This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01 +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
