#1. That's correct, adding the local data folder to SET PATH should do the trick. #2. The exe needs to be loaded in local machine memory, so the first thing that comes down the wire is the exe itself. But once loaded and running the exe location should have no impact on the rest of network traffic.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:profoxtech- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Tina Currie > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 1:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Rushmore > > Ok, so I've implemented that suggestion of copying deleteds out to new files > and it's helped a bit. Have also optimised all tables for Rushmore and am > getting reports from sys(3054) that most of the queries are at full > optimisation now - that's helped somewhat too. Some queries I'm still > working on as they report partial optimisation still. Can't figure out why... but > will no doubt get it eventually. > > Anyway, this is probably a no-brainer, but I want to take the tables with static > data and move them to the user's local drives to limit network traffic. If m:\ > is my network and I have SET DEFA TO M:\ issued in startup, then I just > include a "c:\Myapp\data" in the SET PATH don't I? That way data is still > found... > > Also, currently the exe lives on the network and everyone accesses it to run > the application - I figured that was easier for when I supply a new build - but > have I got that right? Is there any impact on network traffic doing it this way > or should I move the exe to each local machine also? > > TIA, > > Tina Currie > www.datahouse.com.au > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Russell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 10:33 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: Rushmore > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Tina Currie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hmmm... Good to know. > > > > I currently have a system that used to run quite quickly (data lives > > on network and there are now 7 machines accessing it simultaneously) > > but it > has > > s-l-o-w-e-d right down recently so I too have been investigating > > Rushmore Optimisation. The tables have a TON of deleted records now > > and this gives me one more place to look for speeding it all up. > ------------- > > Why not copy to delTableName for deleted(). Then pack the table? If > you have a lot then it might help a little. In that you don't have to suck them > down local over the network. > > > > -- > Stephen Russell > > Sr. Production Systems Programmer > CIMSgts > > 901.246-0159 cell > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
