What started this all was an update to an empty, optimized collection that was
taking over 1 second. This is what really surprised me.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Bowers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:50 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Update Verity Collections Execution Time
Barney,
Barney Boisvert wrote:
> I didn't say anything about read speed. I agree, verity is quite fast for
> that. The updates, however, are slow like a dog. I don't think anyone
can
> argue that one. If you've got a collection using verity that doesn't
change
> a whole lot, then verity is great (and free, if the collection is small
> enough). But if the collection is highly dynamic, then verity quicky gets
> crushed under it's own weight.
>
> So yes, my statements don't always apply, but the initial question was
about
> updates, not reads.
It depends how you update the Collection. If you use REFRESH for
example, you are purging the entire collection and rebuilding it from
scratch -- this is time consuming. If you use UPDATE this is relatively
quick but needs to be optimised regularly.
I'm simply saying that suggesting that folks *not* use Verity on account
of anecdotal evidence on its apparent slowness, be it updates or reads
is not useful. And that for small collections certainly -- be it reads
or updates, Verity is more than adequate. I would consider 10,000
records to be small and 45 seconds to even REFRESH a long time.
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
