well, you know, it depends on the test, but I can tell you that I'm getting
much better results out of SQL Server right now, but I'm working on this, my
intention is having a fb backend much faster than anything else... and yes,
I didn't see any different from Express or no-express... Are
Steve Miller wrote:
well, you know, it depends on the test, but I can tell you that I'm getting
much better results out of SQL Server right now, but I'm working on this, my
intention is having a fb backend much faster than anything else... and yes,
I didn't see any different from Express or
Well, needless to say I'm pretty happy with Firebird, which I believe is a
great db. In fact up to 10 concurrent users (I'm talking about our system,
it will obviously vary with others) Fb is better than SQL Server.
Well, I tried both with SQLServer 2005 (a developers' release) and
Hi Pablo,
Thank you for publishing your numbers.
On the other hand, in my test, the embedded server is slower than the
external one: 444s to complete the embedded vs 291 the external.
Just to give some data to compare: using SQL Server the same test
(exactly the same code base) requires
of the Firebird .NET providers
firebird-net-provider@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load
Hi Pablo,
Thank you for publishing your numbers.
On the other hand, in my test, the embedded server is slower than
On 1/14/08, pablosantosluac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there a place where I can find a performance benchmark comparing Firebird
with other dbs??
Probably yes. But better to ask in support list.
--
Jiri {x2} Cincura (Microsoft Student Partner)
http://blog.vyvojar.cz/jirka/ |
, January 13, 2008 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load
On 1/13/08, pablosantosluac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, in my test, the embedded server is slower than the
external one: 444s to complete the embedded vs 291 the external.
Just
Hello:
Ok, the first two methods (Fetch Free) eat about 26% of the test time
and they're basically spending their times at FbClient.isc_dsql_fetch and
FbClient.isc_dsql_free_statement.
Maybe the problem could be in the fact the fetches are done with only one
record in each time, while
On 1/13/08, pablosantosluac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, in my test, the embedded server is slower than the
external one: 444s to complete the embedded vs 291 the external. Just to
give some data to compare: using SQL Server the same test (exactly the same
code base)
: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load
pablosantosluac wrote:
Hi there!
I'm running stress tests on Plastic with a Fb backend, and as soon as the
server starts attending several clients, we've a huge performance hit!
Just
configuring plastic to use SQL Server solves
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load
Hello:
The thing is: I run a query which takes X seconds to complete. Well, two
threads doing the same in parallel takes 2xX which doesn't look like a
good scalability factor.
As Dean has stated yet
Hello:
We have to continue using .NET 1.1 that's why we didn't move to a newer
provider.
Ok, it maybe a provider problem, in version 2.0+ there are several changes
in the embedded server support some of them to solver performance problems (
that if i remember well they are not applied to 1.7,
Server.
pablo
- Original Message -
From: Carlos
To: For users and developers of the Firebird .NET providers
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] Firebird scalability under heavy load
Hello:
We have to continue using .NET
pablosantosluac wrote:
Hi there!
I'm running stress tests on Plastic with a Fb backend, and as soon as the
server starts attending several clients, we've a huge performance hit! Just
configuring plastic to use SQL Server solves the problem.
Um, what is plastic?
The thing is: I run a
Hello:
The thing is: I run a query which takes X seconds to complete. Well, two
threads doing the same in parallel takes 2xX which doesn't look like a
good scalability factor.
As Dean has stated yet without a little more of information ti's going to be
hard to help ...
What version of
15 matches
Mail list logo
