I think it only pulls the fields it is going to dislpay. Not the whole patient record. Otherwise they may as well be using MDW2.
Andrew. > -----Original Message----- > From: Horst Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 25 September 2006 9:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Practix slow over WAN link > > On Monday 25 September 2006 07:21, Andrew Cameron wrote: > > If remote server has not cached a copy it pulls it over WAN. > > If remote server has a cached copy it opens that but whilst > doing so > > checks each field is current compared To primary server. > That seems to > > be quicker than pulling the whole file across. > > I see. Problematic design. That will never work to > satisfactory performance, OR will always be risky regarding > data integrity (or maybe even both, depending on design) > > Some developers still seem to be caught in the paradigm of a > paper file where you need to transfer the whole lot. > > When I access a patient record, typically I only access a > small fraction of the total infomartion stored for that > patient - and only the information that gets displayed at any > one moment gets queried (and transferred) - sometimes even > less than that, just an aggregate of the queried data. > > I think the current gnumed team even works (or discussed > working) on look-ahead caching of data (you query and > transfer instantly what you need in order to display the > current active screen, and in the background you query and > transfer what the program anticipates you may need next while > machine and network are idle) - but for most systems even > this is unnecessary overkill - JIT queries limited to what > actually gets displayed is usually fast enough. > > Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
