Am Montag, den 29.10.2007, 03:36 -0400 schrieb Andrew Jensen: > > >From making some quick tests using internal HSQL vs. a MySQL 3.x server > > on a local net I remember MySQL getting slow on network performance when > > doing massive copy or select actions. That's where HSQL was a lot > > faster. On some selects to MySQL base was really slow and XMySQL (an > > elderly administration tool) was lightning fast. > > > > And what would you chalk that difference up to I wonder?
If it's between base vs. XMySQL there are some candidates: the Mysql server is really old, the JDBC driver sits inbetween, base has to do a lot more conversion and formatting work and it is made from more software layers. Something or all of that ... > > Another issue coming to my mind: How much memory does your computer > > have? Especially win xp is known to be rather slow when having too less > > memory. Some observations you made and reported over the time I could > > not reproduce at all when trying on a machine running win98se with 1GB > > RAM. > > > I would love to see your numbers then. I'm not doubting them, not at > all, just would like to see something saying that someone is getting > some decent performance out of this. After all we are still talking > about small databases here, one of the biggest complaints about the > Access MDB file format was that it wouldn't get past a couple of Gig's > in size...not a few dozen Megs. If we're starting a shootout we need to agree on a suite of tests to run. I'm not so keen on doing something like that, but having a set of simple tests for general performance measurement could be helpful. Ideally those test would run without any user interaction (how could that be done?). >From my mind I can say moving from one end to the other of a table with 65.000 or 100.000 records of this kind: 0;nonummy conubia imperdiet;7;246,50;2007-09-04 08:01:49 1;molestie sit Class;0;215,27;2007-09-04 01:33:08 ... (made by a generator) was in the range of 5 to 10 second or so and was a bit over the edge of what is acceptable from useres view. And I wanted to write an issue about page wise navigation getting slower in screen updates the further it goes to the end of that table ... > Actually I am sure it would be faster with more memory, as I am at the > low end of what would be acceptable. 640 Megs with 32 dedicated to video. Nearly the same, the situation on xp only would be bad if there were 256 MB or less, I think. Could be the difference between windos version then or whatever (OO.o version maybe). Marc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
