A good method, test performance under the worst case scenario. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MDRD Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:38 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: Which method is best?
Dennis I will try that but I think I need to set up a slow network to make testing easier. With a fast computer / network it is hard to see the difference in speed. Thanks for the suggestions Marc ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis McGrath<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: RBASE-L Mailing List<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:27 AM Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: Which method is best? I would not do that. Perhaps you can devise a way to drop and recreate the temp table periodically. Creating a temp table is faster if you are projecting it from an existing table rather than using a create command. You could create an empty permanent table with the required structure and project the temp table from that each time. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MDRD Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:56 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: Which method is best? Dennis There is only 5-6 rows in the Temp table at a time. Creating the Temp table each time the form is used seemed too slow. At least on older slower computers. Maybe Packing the Temp table every so often will help? Thanks Marc If you have SCRATCH set to a local drive then Temp tables are stored locally and are very fast. I recommend using indexes (create after populating a table) because this makes them even faster and more robust. Instead of Deleting all rows from a temp table, drop the table and recreate it. This will prevent the temp file from growing through the day. Most databases grow in file size when records are added, but do not shrink when record are deleted. This is true also of temporary tables. I suspect your main slowdown issue is the growing scratch file size. Dennis McGrath ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MDRD Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:45 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Which method is best? Hi I use to use a permanent table then switched to a Temp table thinking it was a better way to go. Since I can not have indexes with a Temp table I an thinking the permanent table might be faster, especially on a slow network. (Staticdb On) If I use the Temp table I create it each time the App is started, most offices Exit Rbase at lunch and restart it when they get back. A few offices said the form that uses this table gets slower as the day goes on. My thinking it is because of the lack of indexes? When we start the form I Delete All Rows in the Table Insert Rows from the Hist table for the last invoice for that custnum Edit Using the form Where Custnum = .vcust..make changes if needed.....there is 3-4 rows in the form Click a button that Inserts the Rows into the Hist table Exit the form Without indexes would the Temp table get bogged down with all the deleted rows that linger around until a Pack or drop and recreate the Temp table? I tried creating the Temp table each time but that slowed things down. I thought the Temp table would be better with multiple users and there would be less chance of users deleting the other users rows since the Temp table is local on each computer. If I use a permanent table I can Pack the Table each time they start the App, which is morning and noon for most offices. Thanks for any advice Marc
