Hello, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas escribió: > Hi, > > > On 2010.05.11 12:22, rafa wrote: >>> Of cause. Did you expect your code to behave in a different way?... >> I thought he reindex all at once ;-) >> The reason is because only one index reindex a table, while the others >> wait, I do not know. > > The reason is hb_dbdetach(), hb_dbattach(). Workarea is attached only > after another thread have detached it. So, you should not expect any > parallelism here. Ok, I've modified the code to eliminate the use of hb_detach () and no thread is created for each index. Performing the test on these pending changes to disk dump memory of the indexes. > > >> I need to save time when re-indexing on the servers, because we handle a >> lot of information in the tables, over 12 GB in total. > > It is interesting what is copy files time for these 12GB on your > server. This can give some idea of the result you can reach. > > > Regards, > Mindaugas > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) > Harbour@harbour-project.org > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
