> finally, I tried the following : I dumped the content of myTable as a > text file, opened > it in the Rev script, and did the selection of records inside a "repeat > for each line" loop. > And to my surprise, the speed of the script improved to almost 40% > (which is a lot for > a script that used to take 5 to 6 sec, and now takes 3.5 to 4 sec)... > > Well, I don't know what conclusion to draw from this... Besides the > obvious superiority > of Transcript... I guess some wise and experienced guys will tell me > that for sophisticated > DB processing I should have switched to a better product (like > Valentina) long time ago... > > But nevertheless I'm curious to know if anyone already faced the need to > (almost) completely > drop SQL in favor of Transcript for DB data search...
I have done a similar thing in the past due to my lack of expertise with SQL. I did an initial SQL query to get set of data that included all that I needed but had more. That gave me a variable (I didn't use files) which I processed further using Revolution. This was very fast however an SQL expert might have been able to do the same thing in pure SQL. I tend to think that the server connection is most likely the slowest part of the operation, so any method that reduces the amount of data to be transmitted is a good thing. But this has to be balanced against processing times. Anyway my advice is to benchmark the different approaches and see what works best in your particular circumstance. 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
