Bob and Karen

It seems when I first went from 6.5 to 7.5 I used a regular table with Indexes.
But I switched to Temp tables thinking it would be safer is 2 workstations were 
doing the same EEP.
It has been a long time and in the server you can not tell any difference.

There are only 3-5 rows each time.

These offices waited for several updates of mine so I can't be sure which of my 
"improvements" caused this <g>

Scratch is Local TMP

I have tried Drop and Project but they say it is still slow 
DROP TABLE tran_spd
 PROJECT TEMP tran_spd FROM tran_hist USING *  +
 WHERE custnum = .vcust AND tr_type = 1 AND tr_date = .vmaxdate
 EDIT USING spdyov2 +
 WHERE tr_type = 1 AND custnum = .vcust CAPTION .vcap

I need to find 2 slow computers to network to make it easier to test this


Thanks
Marc




From: [email protected] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:10 PM
To: RBASE-L Mailing List 
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Workstation speed


Marc,

  I would not use Delete Rows from a temp table when wanting to remove all 
rows.  This is much slower

if there are any number of rows to delete.



Instead try, 



Drop table Tran_spd

Project temp Tran_Spd from (Permanent empty table name of same column 
structure) using all

   or

If Speedov has the same column names, skip the insert and



Project temp Tran_Spd from Speedov using (column list) where......



This may prove even faster yet.   However, note that a lock will be placed on 
Speedov if you

use the project from it.  Otherwise project using Where limit = 0 and then use 
the Insert if a lock

on the table would be problematic.



You do not say how many records are being inserted at a time.  You do not show 
building an

index on your temp table.  I normally do not use indexes on temp tables unless 
there is a lot of

data and of a type that an index would help with.   If you have indexes and are 
using the

Delete Rows command, that will definitely be slower as it has to update all the 
indexes as well.



As Karen stated, make sure your temp settings are local.

-Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:53:10 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Workstation speed

Marc:   Have you tried using a permanent table in 7.5 to see if it's faster 
than using the temp table?    And if you're using temp tables, make sure your 
scratch setting is to a local drive (like SET SCRATCH C:\TEMP)  so that temp 
table information is kept local rather than traveling through the network.

Karen




  This is the second office that has brought up the issue of Rbase getting 
slower as the day wears on.
    
  This tech is a certified network guy so I assume the network is OK, new 
computers 1 gig switches ...
    
  My old code used a regular table and I would just delete rows .....but I 
never heard a complaint on
  the speed
    
  -- tran_spd is a temp table that is created on start of the main menu
    DELETE ROWS FROM tran_spd
  -- APPEND  .... using append instead of insert does not seem to make any 
difference
     
    INSERT +
  INTO tran_spd (custnum,date_con,tr_date,tr_type,ch_code,ch_price,+
  ptest,dig_ch,memo,treat_dr,inscomp,inshold,modf1,modf2,modf3,+
  modf4  ) SELECT custnum,date_con,tr_date,tr_type,ch_code,ch_price,+
  ptest, dig_ch,memo,treat_dr,inscomp,inshold,modf1,modf2,modf3,+
  modf4   FROM speedov WHERE custnum = .vaptcust
    
    EDIT USING spdyov2 +
  WHERE tr_type = 1 AND custnum = .vcust CAPTION .vcap
    
  Then then click a button to Save or append these charges to another table then
  go back to this same EEP again.
    
  Even if I drop Temp tab and Project Temp tab is not faster
    
  I think is it my program logic not 7.5, but my old permanent table in 6.5 was 
faster than the
  temp table in 7.5 

  Why would using Temp table be slower?
    
    
  Marc


Reply via email to