On 17/04/2013 18:47, Randolph Neall wrote: > >The performance is perfectly adequate in all of these systems for the > kinds of queries used in point of care (e.g. typically sub 1-second), > and in some cases where ETL is implemented, the performance is also > acceptable. It's also true that quite a lot of effort and thinking has > gone into optimising AQL queries. There is always a query that can be > written that will take a long time to answer, but so far there is no > overlap between those type of queries and point of care latency > requirements i.e. such queries are always report-oriented, research > queries or some other kind of population query, where a (let's say) 5 > second response is perfectly acceptable. > > That's excellent! Can you give any idea how long it takes to retrieve > into live memory and screen on a user's computer an entire EHR record > of "typical" size and complexity? Or does that not generally happen, > with records instead being fetched in smaller pieces?
Right - you wouldn't ever pull an entire EHR to the screen. I have seen openEHR applications pulling the main managed lists (say 6-8 Compositions), latest lab results, plus a chronological list of consultations / events for the last year or so, plus key demographic data, all sub 0.5 sec. Then the user starts clicking on things, and more comes back. More interesting screens contain a mixture of text and e.g. vital signs real-time graphs, which AQL copes with nicely - you can bring back just a 2-D array of numbers and timestamps for the graph, using AQL. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130417/78d2fadf/attachment.html>
