For general improvements (speed or otherwise) I have found the following
useful for IB:
1: DONT EVER USE IB 5.1, it's crap. 5.5 is solid.
2: Try using stored procedures where you have slow queries with joins -
sometimes they rock! Sometimes not.
3: Figure out how to specify a query plan - IB's optomizer is fairly brain
dead.
4: Don't waste money on multiple cpu's (unless you use anything other than
NT) - just get a fast single processor, lots of ram and fast disk system.
For our base machine we have just purchased a 450 PIII with 640Mb ram and 4
x 9GB raid array. I expect this to be able to open a worm hole to the delta
sector.
5: Read the white paper - 10 (or it it 20 now?) things to make Interbase
Scream. #10 is esp. usefull.
6: Keep your trannies small - the bigger they are the longer it will take to
commit and they can chew thru disk space like a pacman.
We have over 50 sites using IB 5.5 and have not had any corruption to speak
off. We use some freeware software to do daily backups but as yet have not
automated a restore of the gdb - allthough this does help a little. The
sites also reboot their servers weekly.
Happy coding.
>Hello, Group,
>
>A question related to Interbase on Windows NT performance.
>
>We are new to Interbase, and just installed a new system using Interbase
>5.1 on Windows NT 4 Server SP5. We are doing extensive transactions
>(select/insert/update), and should that the performance is not as good as
>we expected.
>
>Disregarding the detail performance measurement, we tested the performance
>on two different spec PCs. One is Ceon 500 CPU, 256MB RAM, Super FAX
>SCSI-II harddisk, another one is AMD-166 CPU (slower than Pentium 133),
>64MB RAM, normal IDE harddisk. The strange thing is that both machine
>giving the same (or say similar) performance.
>
>In both situation, we run client and server on the same machine, and access
>database via BDE TQuery. Both take about 1 second to run 4 SQLs (2 select
>SQL with one or non record return, 2 Update or Insert SQL). We use same
>configuration for BDE on both machine (almost default, with Drive Flag
>4096, Shared Autocommit), and high spec machine configured Interbase Server
>with more memory cache size.
>
>The question is why they give the same performance with so different
>hardware spec? (we hope one should at least twice faster than another
>one). Are there any special configuration we can do to let the high spec
>machine give high performance?
>
>Help please.
>
>Regards,
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Edward Tianjun Huang Today Software Limited
> 97 Great South Road
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Company) Remuera
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Private) Auckland
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Zealand Delphi Users group - Database List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Zealand Delphi Users group - Database List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Delphi Users group - Database List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
