"Jeremy Neal Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "alexrousseau_jta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I forgot to ask: When you say "marginally slower", is it > > still fast enough to load a 2-bit-depth 160x160 bitmap > > in 250ms or less? > > I'm glad to be of service! As for the 'slowness', my (rough) > understanding is that it has to do with the write protection > affecting the storage area; database operations need to account > for this, whereas operations on the dynamic heap do not. (Perhaps > there is other upkeep associated with databases -- someone else > could better answer that.) Anyway, this upkeep occurs at the > record level, and once it is accomplished, read and write > operations take place (I believe) at the same speed they would > on the dynamic heap. Therefore, an application processing many > small records likely would demonstrate a performance loss from > using databases, but one such as yours with (relatively) few > records will not. > My storyboards (for 10 minute films) would hold up to 100 shots, each holding an average of 3 drawings, hence 300 records, the latter being stored in the drawings database (per your earlier suggestion). I can see this thing becoming huge if the user is working on a few films. But I'm not too worried about that yet. I'll do a db access performance test in a few days and that will help me decide whether to cache or not to cache.
> Would someone care to confirm my thinking here? > > As for loading your bitmaps in a quarter-second -- well, I haven't > actually tried it, but I'd be surprised if it were any slower than > that. > Best ! Alex > > Best regards, > Jeremy Neal Kelly > Software Engineer > Peapod -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
