Excellent idea. I will make sure it gets passed along to the new hosts.
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Clif
On Apr 8, 2004, at 1:14 AM, Dennis Bartlett wrote:
A bit late in the day, but it would be better if you put END
OF THREAD
in the subject line as those of us who selectively read
--
u2-users mai
this cardinal rule...
dennis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Clif Oliver
Sent: 06 April 2004 06:06
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING)
*** END OF THREAD ***
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD ANY FURTHER
(That
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
04/05/2004 10:53 PM
Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List
To: "'U2 Users Discussion List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Why is this thread here? And, why is it still continuing
I am kind of enjoying it.
"Glenn W. Paschal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
04/05/2004 10:53 PM
Please respond to U2 Users Discussion List
To: "'U2 Users Discussion List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Su
*** END OF THREAD ***
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD ANY FURTHER
(That means *anyone* not just the poster of the message used for the
Moderator reply)
On Apr 5, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Andrew Gissing wrote:
If you Dont Agree, Prove it... Everybody can Talk.. Where are your
Test
Results?
The problem wi
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of David Scoggins
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 7:54 PM
To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Will,
Joe I think Zero is an exagerration.
This is NOT an Exaggeration, these are TEST Results from well
maintained
SQL Tables.
So you're cla
Why is this thread here? And, why is it still continuing?
Can we stop now?
--Glenn.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew Gissing
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:55 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING
> If you Dont Agree, Prove it... Everybody can Talk.. Where are your Test
> Results?
The problem with performance tests is that there are so many variables. And
then if you remove a lot of the variables to perform a lab test, that does
not reflect real world.
So then you try and make your lab con
l 05, 2004 7:54 PM
>To: 'U2 Users Discussion List'
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>> Will,
>>
>> > Joe I think Zero is an exagerration.
>>
>> This is NOT an Exaggeration, these are TEST Results from well
>> maintained
>
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 7:42 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>Hi Joe,
>
>I must admit to being completely baffled as to your point. Are you
>
>1) Tryin
> Will,
>
> > Joe I think Zero is an exagerration.
>
> This is NOT an Exaggeration, these are TEST Results from well
> maintained
> SQL Tables.
So you're claiming that the query literally takes ZERO time - or in other
words that MS SQL Server is INFINITELY fast in performing this particular
que
8408 4273
+61 417 268 665
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, 6 April 2004 8:40 AM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Will,
> Joe I think Zero is an exagerration.
T
lf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:16 PM
> To: U2 Users Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
> In a message dated 4/4/2004 11:28:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The other day.. i was inspecting a
ion.
Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage – an Evolution in Software Development
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, 5 April 2004 2:24 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Modern Univer
gt;From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:19 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>In a message dated 4/4/2004 11:30:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> >Person
In a message dated 4/4/2004 11:30:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >Personally I would be surprised if either database had a
> way of handling
> >leading wildcards other than an exhaustive scan.
>
> Use "Contains"/English Query. See MS-SQL Server Docs.
>
> Joe Eugene
In a message dated 4/4/2004 11:28:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> The other day.. i was inspecting a UV File with a UV Developer, he ran a
> "COUNT FILENAME"
> on our Customer Master... (BTW Quad CPU 4GHZ)... It took 12-15 Minutes to
> get a result
> back from UV. The fil
Goo'day,
Is this conversation going anywhere?
All I can recall is a rant and rave about (IMO, incorrect) perceived
deficiencies of UV from this bloke, followed by a stream of invective
towards any responder that had the temerity to offer a different outlook,
and for the past couple of days, no
TED]
>Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:24 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>In a message dated 4/4/2004 9:11:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> >One thing I think every
nly had 800,000 Records.
This kind of Operation normally takes "ZERO" Milliseconds in any Enterprise
RDBMS.
I had nothing to say but LAUGH!.
Joe Eugene
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Ray Wurlod
>Sent: Sunday,
In a message dated 4/4/2004 9:11:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >One thing I think everyone's missed (deliberately or otherwise)
> >wildcard (WHERE address LIKE '%EXPLORATION').
>
> I brought this up a couple of times, nobody seemed to be interested
> to check the dif
L PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Ray Wurlod
>Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 1:27 AM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>One thing I think everyone's missed (deliberately or otherwise)
>was that Sara's original post ha
In a message dated 4/4/2004 12:04:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As a quick f'r instance, if I were set the task of selecting records based
> on an indexed field (column) from a UniVerse BASIC program, I'd use
> SELECTINDEX to process the index directly, rather than u
Oops, didn't intend to send this to the list. Sorry.
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Wurlod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:08:19 +1000
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
> Jo
-0500
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
> Ray,
>
> I see you are doing a few things here, am not quite sure i understand.
>
> The only way i have OUR UV Programmers using BASIC/PICK do this
> is like
>
implementing more efficient processing. One can understand the "if it's not broken
don't fix it" mentality but to these folks employ a person carry
ing a red flag to precede their automobile, as used to be required until the law was
changed?
- Original Message -
From: &q
One thing I think everyone's missed (deliberately or otherwise) was that Sara's
original post had a constraint with a LEADING wildcard (WHERE address LIKE
'%EXPLORATION').
The argument that has been raging since has used examples with TRAILING wildcards
(WHERE name LIKE 'Sara%').
Apples and or
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Ray Wurlod
>Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:57 PM
>To: U2 Users Discussion List
>Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
>
>On this basis here are the RetrieVe equivalents for my earlier
>post. The main difference is that there's mo
rget is second file/table
COUNT
SUM not really relevant for NAME
HTH
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:33:20 -0500
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: M
same manner you
would agains tables.
Cheers,
Stewart
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2004 6:03
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Tim,
My apologies... Yes, i know UV has a SQL Interface but i didnt t
Joe,
You can use an SQL query against normal UV files in the same manner you
would agains tables.
Cheers,
Stewart
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2004 6:03
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Tim
Joe Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Timothy Snyder
Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 3:12 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Joe Eugene wrote on 03/31/2004 02:59:29 PM:
> Please post your PICK/BASIC and SQL Query.. so w
Joe Eugene wrote on 03/31/2004 02:59:29 PM:
> Please post your PICK/BASIC and SQL Query.. so we i can learn
> the magic you did on the PICK Side.
Joe,
Unless I'm missing something, Sara used the SQL statement against the
UniVerse database. Perhaps you weren't aware that UniVerse supports
__
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sara Burns
Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 12:57 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
As requested
My queries were done on our machine reasonably early in the morning before
there were a lot of users. I repeated them to ens
Well Said Sara.
- Original Message -
From: "Sara Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
> As requested
>
> My queries were done on our machine reasonably early in
As requested
My queries were done on our machine reasonably early in the morning before
there were a lot of users. I repeated them to ensure that data was in
cache.
Both had the same format
SELECT CustomerNo
FROM CustomerFile
WHERE PostalAddLine1 like '%EXPLORATION%'
ORDER BY CustomerNam
t
argument, the answer is an emphatic yes.
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Sent: 3/30/2004 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Dave,
> I think the results point out the fallacy of your arguments.
The results Sara posted here does NOT Prove
engine to perform a merge-sort similar to what you describe.
Just didn't seem that this called for such a need.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Colquhoun
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Sent: 3/30/2004 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
Hello Dave,
At 09:36 AM 31/03
iginal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
> I think the results point out the fallacy of your arguments
tests might do that, not really sure on
that one...)
Eric Y. Neu
Sr. Programmer Analyst
Zetron, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Joe Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:07 PM
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Modern Unive
Hello Dave,
At 09:36 AM 31/03/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, one thing I did want to address is your QUAD processor point.
You've made it a few times, and I just had to point out that it is
irrelevant to the discussion. While UV will take native advantage of
multi-processors in it's exec
2004 6:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
>
> I think the results point out the fallacy of your arguments. It
shows,
> pretty definitevly, that UV can and does perform as well/better as
Oracle,
> albeit under certain circumstances (ie, I&#x
cc
Subject
03/30/2004 04:36 RE: Modern Universe (TESTING)
rmance equivalent of operating on a
single processor machine of whatever rating it has (and obviously, memory,
other applications running, etc... impact that)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Sent: 3/30/2004 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: Modern Universe (TEST
Sara,
Can you please post your Query and results... Cause I am seeing the
EXACT Opposite...as I posted earlier.
Oracle Query is what?
Select firstName from Customers where firstName like 'Sar%';
The above takes about 7-9 Times More Time to get any results on Our UV
QUAD PROCESSOR MACHINE.
Pleas
45 matches
Mail list logo
