[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 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. You should probably turn on WARNINGS and DEBUG while running it with the cache file and see if you can figure out what it's doing -- the cache files are almost identical to the in-memory database that Analog build, so the load and process time should be much faster than log files. You might also try SETTINGS ON to make sure it's loading the files you think it is. -- Jeremy Wadsack Wadsack-Allen Digital Group +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
