Phil Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, on 6/18/00 8:40 PM:
>> Why is this? Is it just that it isn't as efficient as a "true" database
>> program. If that is all it is, I would live with the inefficiency as I am
>> doing with HyperCard. I only want to learn one program and try to know it
>> really well.
>
>The main difference between MC and HC when it comes to large
>stacks is: when you open a stack in MC, the whole stack is loaded
>into memory; when you open a stack in HC, only the part of the
>stack currently needed (I believe) is loaded into memory. (At
>least, the whole stack is not loaded at once). This is why MC is
>so fast - it's always working with something that's in memory.
>That's also why MC isn't as great for super-large stacks.
On the other hand, if your data will fit in memory, then MetaCard is a
great way to store it, database or not. I don't have experience of stacks
larger than about 1000 cards, but I have used MetaCard on blocks of data
as large as a few megabytes (30,000 lines in a text block, at about 100
bytes per line) and a judiciously applied filter command can slice that
like butter. Specifically, I broke it down into thousand-line chunks
ahead of time, and ran the filter on each of them. It's actually very
fast, and allows for good results. But it's not 30,000 cards, or even
2000. Just a few, with data displayed dynamically in the fields.
Just my 2 cents
Geoff Canyon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
