Rick
It's your code :-) if I recall it correct you said, somewhere, use this to make
timings, but my memory may be wrong.
/hex
----- Ursprungligt Meddelande -----
Från: Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com>
Till:<hexi...@users.sourceforge.net> , Open Object Rexx Users
<oorexx-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Kopia:
Datum: söndag, 21 oktober 2012 12:30
Ämne: Re: [Oorexx-users] oosqlite ? step and result
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:24 AM, hakan <hexi...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Staffan
Here is the results from my test run. 3 times for each type.
Table 1 contains unique keys and table 2 contains records to these keys (one to
many relation)
Count is total items in each table.
Timer is started just before database open and ends after database close.
In the case for exec I do an iteration over the result from table 2, but do
nothing.
Using ~bindtext is faster than to create a total new query, looking the same
except for the key (in table2), each time, as you can see.
I also agree that exec is more convenience to use and that even if one can cut
the time reading a sqltable, it doesn't matter,
if the result is to be presented in a ooDialog tree or whatever, that's where
the time is spent (at least in my case, showing the (exec) result in a ooDialog
treeview, we talk minutes!)
Anyway, I will later also try out your suggestion to use callback to construct
my own directory objects when using step.
I will take it step by step :-)
/hex
---------------------------------------------------------
- SQL exec -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed time 00:00:10.340000
- SQL exec -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed time 00:00:10.071000
- SQL exec -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed time 00:00:10.123000
----------------------------------------------------------
- SQL step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:05.602000
- SQL step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:05.971000
- SQL step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:06.919000
---------------------------------------------------------
- SQL Bind step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:02.450000
- SQL Bind step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:02.460000
- SQL Bind step -
Table 1 items 27982
Table 2 items 234988
Elapsed Time 00:00:02.460000
-------------------------------------------------------------
I used this for the timer
timer = .timer~new
my testcode
say timer~elapsed
::class timer
::method init
self~reset
::method reset
expose timestamp
timestamp = .datetime~new
::method elapsed
expose timestamp
return .datetime~new - timestamp
Useful, but note that the DateTime class does have an elapsed method!
Rick
----- Ursprungligt Meddelande -----
Från: Staffan Tylen <staffan.ty...@gmail.com>
Till:<hexi...@users.sourceforge.net> , Open Object Rexx Users
<oorexx-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Kopia:
Datum: lördag, 20 oktober 2012 22:13
Ämne: Re: [Oorexx-users] oosqlite ? step and result
I have tried sql statements with :aname or ?1 or etc and then bind a value to
that parameter with ~bindtext as I think I get a performance gain by doing so,
part of the sql is already "compiled" by sqlite and it would be conveniant to
get the result back as directory object for each step.
As I followed the conversation about "performance observation..." I realized
that creating the directory objects with (~exec) current implementation take
some resources, I have tables with ~300 000 rows and ~10 columns, and wants to
have the convineance of using the directory objects as reference to the
returned row together with the ~bindtext possibility, less changes to some
existing code I have :-).
/hex
OK, I see what you mean. My immediate reaction is - because Rexx is an
interpretive language, even if compiled, there is the possibility that there is
very little to gain from using SQL bind. I believe the effort for SQLite to
compile an SQL statement is almost negligible compared to Rexx compiling and
executing a Rexx statement. I started to look into the possibility of using
bind but found that I had nothing to gain, it just complicated my coding. As
I've stated earlier, by using exec all the major processing is done in compiled
code in contrast to step, where Rexx must be called for each row. I can imagine
that handling 300,000 rows in Rexx will have an impact on performance.
In any case it would be very interesting if you had a chance to make a
performance comparison between the two. For this you would need to establish
the input and the exact format of the output, then build the step and exec
routines that when executed will take you from A to B. Then use the time("E")
function to time each of them.
Also remember that when you use exec you also have the callBack functionality
available where you can handle individual rows just like step to build for
example a directory. If I remember correctly, in the callBack routine you also
have the power to terminate a query before you have processed all rows, just
like step.
Staffan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-users mailing list
Oorexx-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-users mailing list
Oorexx-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-users