I don't currently have a project where I'm trying to store thousands of records. To some, maybe that will invalidate my views on the subject.
I just read what Sarah had written below and I was frankly a bit peeved. I've spent a considerable amount of time learning how to use stacks as documents and then to find out that even at a paltry 4000 cards, Revolution is in her words 'unworkably slow'. That just doesn't sit well with me. Most of us have yesterday's supercomputers sitting on our desks or in our laps. Revolution shouldn't take a performance hit until you're dealing with millions of cards. Maybe it's doing something stupid in all of that searching, like thousands of saves to disk when it should be suspending them until the search operation is over. --- Sarah Reichelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would recommend the list field-single card method for Rev. With > Hypercard, marking cards by finding was super fast. With Rev this is > not the case. I wrote a small database (about 4000 records) in > Hypercard for some friends, using the one card per record method. > When > they changed to OS X, I tried just importing it into Rev but > searching > for multiple matches was unworkably slow. I converted it all to a > single card plus data field and it was all good again. Plus the data > is easier to back up and restore if I send them a program update. > > Cheers, > Sarah > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
