He has many clients across the US and does not employ anybody. Any
problems he solves via remote desktop. He does not know much about sql
(probably very little)
And he does not want to change the DBF's to even DBC bound tables,
because he does not want the aggravation of solving corruption issues
other that a corrupted index file
El 09/07/2014 12:23, Stephen Russell escribió:
Check your index as a first point.
Outside of cost, why is the client against a "real" database in favor of
the old fashion data files circa 1980 technology?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Rafael Copquin <[email protected]>
wrote:
I am migrating an old DOS app to VFP 9. The client does not even want to
hear about SQL Server or any flavour of an outside engine (MYSQL,MSSQL,etc)
The DOS program uses several tables that have hundreds of thousands of
records and they use the application in a LAN
If I use the tables as the old FOX DOS does, namely, open the table and
navigate it with the arrow keys or the pageup, pagedown, end,top keys, the
screens fly.
There is this table that has over a million records. I want to use a
cursor adapter to do handle it, but find that the sql command takes over 5
seconds to open the table.
I figured I would use a pagination scheme, that is, select 100 records at
a time with the cursor adapter, let the user edit any records they want,
and then select another batch of 100 records. Use the page up, page down
keys, etc to select batches of records. But every time I issue the select
statement, it takes about 5 seconds to bring the record set.
The table has a primary key, which is used by the cursor adapter. If I do
not use a CA and simply use a SQL statement, the delay is the same.
And we are talking my developing machine (single user)
There are no Rushmore issues here, as far as I can tell, because I only
have the PK index and the select statement just uses commands like:
select top 100 * from thetable order by pk asc
select top 100 * from the table where pk > 100 order by pk asc
etc
Why would it take so long to select the records, if the table is sitting
in my own HD?
I fear to think what it will do if the table is in a LAN server.
Rafael Copquin
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
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/[email protected]
** 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.
