sense
> for that given task.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lahav
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 4D_Tech <4d_tech-boun...@lists.4d.com> On Behalf Of Two Way
> Communications via 4D_Tech
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:47 AM
> To: 4D iNug Technical <4d_tech@lists.4d.c
for a fair comparison,
I think the "query path" feature should be activated on both sides (ORDA and
QUERY).
you will get the time required to complete the query.
surrounding a block of code with "Milliseconds" (if that is how you got the
measurements) does not feel right in this context.
> Doin
hnical <4d_tech@lists.4d.com>
Cc: Two Way Communications
Subject: Confused about ORDA
I am a bit confused… isn’t ORDA supposed to be faster than traditional queries?
I did a test with a table containing 120,000 records. The query is on 4 indexed
fields and returns 54,000 records.
Doing th
Nope it always worked this way. If you have * at end of line and do not
identify what query format will be & (and) is assumed
This
QUERY([T_Loggers_data];[T_loggers_readings]FK_REAP=[REAP_sections]FK_REAP;*)
QUERY([T_Loggers_data];[T_Loggers_data]TLD_timestamp>=$TSsectionSta
On Jul 29, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Rudy Mortier wrote:
> I am a bit confused… isn’t ORDA supposed to be faster than traditional
> queries?
>
> I did a test with a table containing 120,000 records. The query is on 4
> indexed fields and returns 54,000 records.
>
> Doing the query with ORDA takes 175
Exactly, the ‘&’ is not mandatory. Both queries return the same result.
Rudy Mortier
Two Way Communications bvba
> On 29 Jul 2018, at 22:23, Douglas von Roeder via 4D_Tech
> <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> I think that's a shortcut from many years ago so it's an implicit "&".
>
Bob:
I think that's a shortcut from many years ago so it's an implicit "&".
--
Douglas von Roeder
949-336-2902
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:12 PM Robert McKeever via 4D_Tech <
4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
> Either they have changed the way QUERY works, or you are missing …&;…
> after the first se
Either they have changed the way QUERY works, or you are missing …&;… after the
first semi-colon on lines 2, 3, and 4 of the QUERY. So, it looks like you are
really simply searching for just the last line. Probably would be quicker.
> On Jul 29, 2018, at 4:47 AM, Two Way Communications via 4D_Te
I am a bit confused… isn’t ORDA supposed to be faster than traditional queries?
I did a test with a table containing 120,000 records. The query is on 4 indexed
fields and returns 54,000 records.
Doing the query with ORDA takes 175 milliseconds.
Doing the query with QUERY takes 4 milliseconds.
W
9 matches
Mail list logo
