Dan,
Again, excellent questions!
a) I've built three systems and see the same results consistently.
Win7 32 bit
Win7 64 bit
two different Intel Mboards, G31 and an older one....I think it's a
965. All with built-in NICs.
I did try using a different NIC on the 965 system.
I always use Seagate Hdrives, but different models as technology
advances.
b) I haven't done anything with regards to virt memory....I did notice
that if I set the TMPFILES parameter, and checked the location of the
cursors with DBF() after they were created and before the combo load
routine ran, I could get Windows+VFP to "put it where I wanted it to"
but it didn't make any difference in speed.
I also noticed that by looking in the temp folder while the program
was paused
messagebox('File location: '+dbf('temp'),0,'Notice')
that Windows never created any file in the temp folder even though
VFP reported it as being there along with the cursor's file name. Not
unusual. The cursor isn't really that big.
c) You got me here. Tell me how to do that and I'll try it! But it seems
odd that running the EXE from a network drive is fast. I mean, I THINK
that the local drive is used for cursors and caching and such when
running the EXE from a network drive, so why would it be different????
Personally, I don't like finding funky anomalies.
And, I hope ya'll don't think I'm just shooting down anything that is
suggested. It really does help to hear your suggestions! That's why my
original post was so long....I was trying to eliminate irrelevant
factors. At least they seem irrelevant to me....but maybe not.
Thanks again Dan!
Mike
> Mike:
>
> I agree with Michael Babcock's suggestions - use a cursor and use LOCATE
> instead of GO TOP. But that doesn't seem to explain the difference in
> your four scenarios.
>
> IIRC, the one that fails is the compiled app on a local VFP 7. Which
> leads to a few questions:
> a) Is this one system only or several?
> b) What is the virtual memory setup? No swap file or too small to start
> could do something like this.
> c) Is write caching turned off on the local drive?
>
> Seems to me that it has to be something in the loop. I like MB's
> thought about getting rid of the NOT EOF().
>
> Dan Covill
>
> On 3/3/2011 5:52 AM, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> On 3/2/2011 3:02 PM, Mike Copeland wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> MESSAGEBOX('Starting to load Grid. Click OK to start...',0+64,'Notice')
>>> LOCAL ttimestart,ttimeexp
>>> SELECT sku FROM skus into temp WHERE active=1 order by sku
>>> SELECT temp
>>> GO TOP IN temp
>>>
>>> ttimestart=seconds()
>>>
>>> SCAN WHILE !EOF('temp')
>>> thisform.ctGrid.addcomboitem(1,temp.sku)
>>> ENDSCAN
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Slight tweaks:
>>
>> > MESSAGEBOX('Starting to load Grid. Click OK to
>> start...',0+64,'Notice')
>> > LOCAL ttimestart,ttimeexp
>> > SELECT sku FROM skus into CURSOR temp WHERE active=1 order by sku
>> > SELECT temp
>> > LOCATE
>> >
>> > ttimestart=seconds()
>> >
>> > SCAN
>> > thisform.ctGrid.addcomboitem(1,temp.sku)
>> > ENDSCAN
>>
>> Not sure if that'll make much difference, but it's known that LOCATE is
>> quicker than GO TOP. Also, your SCAN loop doesn't need the WHILE !EOF
>> clause.
>>
>> My comment on the design is that I wouldn't do 23,000 items in a combo,
>> but I guess you can't change that now?
>>
[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.
