Your solution sounds very interesting (Not the throw away NT
part...)...does anyone else have any input on this? Would it work well?
Any idea as to what amount of traffic it would be capable of handling?
If apache is only running in two instances, would that really keep the
number of ODBC
On Monday 15 Oct 2001 13:35, Joseph Koenig wrote:
Your solution sounds very interesting (Not the throw away NT
part...)
That is where a signifficant part of the performance improvement would come
from, if performance was what you were after...
...does anyone else have any input on this?
Gordan Bobic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm going to have to rant now. The dump and restore which use the COPY
method are actually totally useless for large databases. The reason for
this is simple. Copying a 4 GB table with 40M rows requires over 40GB of
temporary scratch space to copy, due
On 12 Oct 2001, Doug McNaught wrote:
Probably the best thing to do is to export the data from Progress in a
format that the PostgreSQL COPY command can read. See the docs for
details.
Hi,
I wrote a quick and dirty function/trigger to sync two DBs - one
local and the other on the
Joseph Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a project where a client has products stored in a large Progress
DB on an NT server. The web server is a FreeBSD box though, and the
client wants to try to avoid the $5,500 license for the Unlimited
Connections via OpenLink software and would
On 12 Oct 2001, Doug McNaught wrote:
Joseph Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a project where a client has products stored in a large Progress
DB on an NT server. The web server is a FreeBSD box though, and the
client wants to try to avoid the $5,500 license for the Unlimited
