From: Ann Harrison aharri...@ibphoenix.com [firebird-support]
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Re: Is Firebird 3 ready for Production?
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ann Harrison wrote:
On Wed, May 2
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:30 AM, fabia...@itbizolutions.com.au
[firebird-support] wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>
> In V3.0, Firebird is multi-threaded at the client statement level. It
> does not decompose queries and schedule the pieces on different processors.
>
>
>
> I understand, I thought true S
ebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Re: Is Firebird 3 ready for Production?
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:11 PM, fabia...@itbizolutions.com.au
[firebird-support] wrote:
Now on the flip side, the performance sucks, it is worst
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ann Harrison
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:11 PM, fabia...@itbizolutions.com.au
> [firebird-support] wrote:
>
>>
>> Now on the flip side, the performance sucks, it is worst than with FB
>> 2.54, and when looking at the task manager on windows it appears onl
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:11 PM, fabia...@itbizolutions.com.au
[firebird-support] wrote:
>
> Now on the flip side, the performance sucks, it is worst than with FB
> 2.54, and when looking at the task manager on windows it appears only one
> processor it doing the job, as if the code was not SMP
Pete
Thanks for your input.
We managed to get the DB upgraded to 3.0 (removed all charset ASCII
definitions on fields while on 2.54, then backup the DB and restored it on 3.0,
and it all worked). Now on the flip side, the performance sucks, it is worst
than with FB 2.54, and when looking
Fabian, I would not rush into FB 3.0 on a production system. We did and we
regret it. We had the same hopes that the SMP would make great improvements.
At this point things are actually running slower for us with FB 3.0. Some of
the queries needed to be rewritten to perform better, and we h