We used to process files at boston childrens hospital with fpd 2.6 that were
so large that they would take 6 or more hours per day to run.
Never had a problem with size.

We were doing a conversion from a dec??? to a ibm mainframe where they would
download the files to us, we would validate them using foxpro, and if we
gave the approval, they would transfer the file from the dec to the ibm.

Don't quote me on the systems as that was back in the late 80's, early 90's
from what I remember, and I've had a lot of beer and stress since then

-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of MB Software
Solutions General Account
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:25 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: Working with text files larger than 2GB (VFP9SP2)

On Thu, November 7, 2013 1:18 pm, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Is the entire file required in memory?  A text file could be processed 
> sequentially a line or a buffer at a time.


No, the entire file is not required in memory at the same time.  I'm just
taking 1 line at a time, and writing the string out to a different file
based on the first 6 characters of the row.  (That's the provider number.)
I plan to create this "splitter" program to pare down the behemouth files
into smaller ones they can process by provider.  (All provider data is
separate...no one mixed.)

So given that...I don't have to worry how big their source file is then, eh?


[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/061d01cedcc9$c07da500$4178ef00$@gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to