Thanks for the advice. Sorry for the delay in acknowledging it.
Update:
By rolling my own,extremely normalized, database within a (Palm) database, I
can get all my 500,000
records in the 16MB Palm with almost instantaneous retrieval.
I solved(?) the locking problem, by initially locking every
Logan / Jim / Clive,
I am developing an app. that will store approx. 500,000 contacts.
... Even on a 16M device, each record can average only about 32 bytes
If you could
get a 2-to-1 compression ratio through huffman coding, you'd be able
to store 15 characters of stuff per field plus null
I am developing an app. that will store approx. 500,000 contacts.
Are you sure this is an appropriate thing to do on a Palm (or any PDA)?
If each contact has only 4 fields (first name, last name, phone number
and email), the database will need 2M just for the null terminating
bytes. Even on a
Jim Cooper wrote:
I am developing an app. that will store approx. 500,000 contacts.
Are you sure this is an appropriate thing to do on a Palm (or any PDA)?
If each contact has only 4 fields (first name, last name, phone number
and email), the database will need 2M just for the null terminating
Clive,
Nobody respondly directly to your questions, so I will take a shot at it.
That will be OK as long as I can keep many Palm records locked at the same
time.
I am not aware of a limit to how many records you can keep locked at once.
If I find a way round that so that only the first in
I am developing an app. that will store approx. 500,000 contacts. To do this I
have my own heavily normalized database inside the Palm database (memory
chunks).
The data will be almost read only. That is, there are a couple of bytes whose
value can be changed; but nothing can be added, deleted
on persistency please
I am developing an app. that will store approx. 500,000
contacts. To do this I have my own heavily normalized database
inside the Palm database (memory chunks). The data will be
almost read only. That is, there are a couple of bytes whose
value can be changed; but nothing can
If you lock the handle to a PDB record that contains your memory chunk
for the duration that your pointer into your struct is in scope you
should be OK.
So I have to lock all the records I have accessed until I no longer want them,
otherwise they may
become invalid even though I have not
Clive Walden wrote:
So I have to lock all the records I have accessed until I no longer want them,
otherwise they may
become invalid even though I have not changed any data?
Yes, the chunks are relocateable in order to avoid memory fragmentation.
Locking stops them from being relocated as long as
