, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
If I've been following this correctly, the speed is good when processed
locally (on the same machine?) but slow most of the time when a network
is involved although not always slow. I wouldn't point the finger at the
server, nor the workstation
On 9/14/2012 7:28 AM, Michael Madigan wrote:
My software is too optimized, I have a gazillion index tags, which gives it
more moving parts to fail. Throwing hardware at something isn't a bad idea,
but sometimes you can't.
I worked for this insane woman in Philadelphia (Wyncote to be
From: Michael Madigan mmadi10...@yahoo.com
My software is too optimized, I have a gazillion index tags, which gives
it more moving parts to fail.
Throwing hardware at something isn't a bad idea, but sometimes you can't.
Just create another software to optimize your optimizations, and bill
Just create another software to optimize your optimizations, and bill it
hard !
Recursive minding won't suggest that programmers equals psychotics, are they
?
(i'm wondering about the correct grammar of my previous sentence :
i had the choice between are they and isn't it : in this particular
Le 12/09/2012 05:17, Fred Taylor a écrit :
You do have an index tag on DATE in all the tables, right?
Fred
PUBLIC gcworkplan
=SYS(3092, optimisation.txt)
=SYS(3054, 12, gcworkplan)
your query goes here
=SYS(3054, 0)
=SYS(3092, )
Run this program and open the file optimisation.txt to see what
Le 12/09/2012 07:44, Fred Taylor a écrit :
Internally, I don't think there's a difference, it's just syntax.
oh, it's just a good habit to have ! First, if, one day, you want to upload
your
database towards Oracle, Sql Server, ...
The Foxil
___
Post
If the fact that more than one user is on the app slows the query, can you try
to open the tables exclusively or to FLOCK() them just to see what happens ?
Another way should be to build a COM object staying on the server and doing all
the heavy queries and creating cursors or returning XML
Sytze,
Firstly I would do like Paul suggests and split the unions up to catch data
into three separate cursors curA, curB and curC then do a select * from curA
union all select * from curB ... into cursor curResult etc. Doing it this way
you can at least find out which select is taking the
Oh yes and I forgot to add have you tried running the program (aka 30 mins)
then reindexing the tables and re-running it. Once again the indexes could all
be in need of re-organisation.
-Original Message-
From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of
Sytze,
this sounds like it might be the oplocks problem where an application
runs perfectly fine when only one user is logged in but slows down when
more than one logs in.
Here are my notes on switching this off.
http://oplocks.net/how-to-disable-win32
Multiuser system speed
1. Set
On 9/11/2012 9:35 PM, Sytze de Boer wrote:
I'm losing my mind over this
At a client site, they run a report which can take 30 mins to generate,
over the network
When they run it on a local pc, it takes 5 secs
Without boring you with all the details, essentially, the following code
makes up
On 9/11/2012 11:22 PM, Sytze de Boer wrote:
Fred
(Blush) NO
S
DOH! Dammit Sytze...you owe a round of pints for that one. :-)
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http://fabmate.com
What happens if you use DATE BETWEEN trcask4 and trcask5 instead of
using VFP's BETWEEN function? iirc, BETWEEN(field,arg1,arg2) was NOT
optimizable but field BETWEEN arg1 and arg2 was optimizable.
Just tried it to prove it to myself. No difference in whichever syntax you
choose,
On 9/12/2012 1:02 PM, Fred Taylor wrote:
What happens if you use DATE BETWEEN trcask4 and trcask5 instead of
using VFP's BETWEEN function? iirc, BETWEEN(field,arg1,arg2) was NOT
optimizable but field BETWEEN arg1 and arg2 was optimizable.
Just tried it to prove it to myself. No
, September 12, 2012 1:14 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Speed
On 9/12/2012 1:02 PM, Fred Taylor wrote:
Just tried it to prove it to myself. No difference in whichever
syntax you choose, optimization uses the TAG on the date field and is fully
optimized.
Thanks, Fred! I'm in/out
...@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com]
On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions, LLC
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:14 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Speed
On 9/12/2012 1:02 PM, Fred Taylor wrote:
Just tried it to prove it to myself. No difference in whichever
syntax you
Programmers can fix software. Hardware... not so much. Depends on your
what your job is.
Fred
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Russell srussell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Fred Taylor fbtay...@gmail.com wrote:
Works in VFP 7, too.
-
.
My finger would point at the query processing speed, not the actual flow
of bits over the wire.
But I agree it sounds fishy.
Mike
Original Message
Subject: Re: Speed
From: Fred Taylor fbtay...@gmail.com
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Date: 9/12/2012 2:47 PM
Programmers can fix
Sounds like it could be an antivirus program problem. Shut off antivirus on
the client and see what happens. If that fixes the problem then you have to
have your antivirus program ignore the network data directory.
If it runs well locally, it should run fairly well over the network.
Thanks for that, but we have discounted that by removing the AV software,
on the server as well as workstation
S
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Madigan mmadi10...@yahoo.comwrote:
Sounds like it could be an antivirus program problem. Shut off antivirus
on the client and see what
Since it only takes 5 seconds locally, it can't be a index issue or an
optimization issue.
Are the temp files set to local client disk?
editwork=c:\temp
sortwork=c:\temp
progwork=c:\temp
tmpfiles=c:\temp
From: Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
To: profox
Yes, config.fpw points to c:\temp
They didn't to begin with (c:\) but I changed that
I installed a basic little server at my office (Win 2003)
I copied their data to it
Running with 100 Mbit cable and swith, I get 30 secs and 5 secs on
subsequent runs
Running Gigabit cable and switch, I get 7
You might try using a statement like
...where (Date=?startdate and date=?enddate)
John
-Original Message-
From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Sytze de Boer
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:09 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Speed
Yes
On 9/11/12 6:35 PM, Sytze de Boer wrote:
Can anyone suggest a way to make this go quicker?
Not to go quicker, but to try to close in on the problem:
Just for kicks and to try to narrow down which query (if any) is the bottleneck,
split that out into 3 select statements (ditch the UNION ALL) and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm losing my mind over this
At a client site, they run a report which can take 30 mins to generate,
over the network
When they run it on a local pc, it takes 5 secs
If it's 60 sec vs 5 sec, would it be an improvement
You do have an index tag on DATE in all the tables, right?
Fred
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, config.fpw points to c:\temp
They didn't to begin with (c:\) but I changed that
I installed a basic little server at my office (Win 2003)
I
Fred
(Blush) NO
S
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Fred Taylor fbtay...@gmail.com wrote:
You do have an index tag on DATE in all the tables, right?
Fred
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, config.fpw points to c:\temp
They didn't to begin
That will speed it up, but it shouldn't go from 5 seconds to 30 minutes without
it, should it?
From: Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
To: profox@leafe.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
Fred
(Blush) NO
S
On Wed, Sep 12
On a half-million record table...if the fields are pretty large and
text-heavy...it might.
Mike
Original Message
Subject: Re: Speed
From: Michael Madigan mmadi10...@yahoo.com
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Date: 9/11/2012 11:53 PM
That will speed it up, but it shouldn't go from 5
it?
From: Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
To: profox@leafe.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
Fred
(Blush) NO
S
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Fred Taylor fbtay...@gmail.com wrote:
You do have an index tag on DATE in all the tables, right
wrote:
That will speed it up, but it shouldn't go from 5 seconds to 30 minutes
without it, should it?
From: Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
To: profox@leafe.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
Fred
(Blush
it?
From: Sytze de Boer sytze.k...@gmail.com
To: profox@leafe.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
Fred
(Blush) NO
S
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Fred Taylor fbtay...@gmail.com
wrote:
You do have an index tag on DATE in all
Le 12/09/2012 04:36, John Harvey a écrit :
You might try using a statement like
...where (Date=?startdate and date=?enddate)
Going further : BETWEEN(date, start, end) is a VFP function, not a SQL clause.
You should write
WHERE date BETWEEN start AND end
The Foxil
Internally, I don't think there's a difference, it's just syntax.
Fred
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Jean MAURICE jsm.maur...@wanadoo.frwrote:
Le 12/09/2012 04:36, John Harvey a écrit :
You might try using a statement like
...where (Date=?startdate and date=?enddate)
Going further
I haven't used it myself yet but try looking at the Task Pane Manager Solution
Samples. The What's New in VFP 9 section has a couple examples on how to use
multi-detail band reports.
--
rk
-Original Message-
Subject: Speed and complexity of report
Questions
Is this a multiple detail
On 10/04/11 15:37, Michael Savage wrote:
Also, the simple report of the first query takes a long time to
display... How Can I speed it up?
Mike
By 'the first query' do you mean just the invoice and its detail? Or do
you mean a query producing the entire hierarchy you showed?
What is the
At 05:13 PM 9/5/2008 -0700, Michael Madigan wrote:
Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
hardware.
...
Yep yep. I imagine it's not quite so fragile as people tend to think. But
usually
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Charlie Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:13 PM 9/5/2008 -0700, Michael Madigan wrote:
Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
hardware.
...
Yep yep.
Michael Madigan wrote:
Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
hardware.
I found the opposite: We use direct and indirect (lots of local views)
table access and were having a ton of
I too use only local viewws in all tables. My server is using
SQL 2003, three shops, maybe 20 or more people accessing no
problem anymore. With a win98 network it didn't work.
My problem now is with credits card and it's dedicated net,
in intensive operations it's loosing data with 2027 error.
NT had a big problem with VFP. I think one of the later SP's had the dreaded
write ahead cache and didn't tell anyone. I had tables going missing doing
reindex and all kinds of stuff.
Al
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul McNett
I
Paul McNett wrote:I found the opposite: We use direct and indirect
(lots of local views) table access and were having a ton of corruption
problems on a NT4 server with only a handful of users in the system. I
literally had to reindex every night, and I was never confident that data
didn't
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:17:14 -0400, Michael Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Just looking for some ideas about increasing performance on a network.
Assuming all your VFP code is in order with regards to optimized queries
etx ...
If you have Norton/Symantec ensure the scanning of network
On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as many as 80
simultaneous users with VFP9 SP1. Actually over 250 but I don't think
more than 80-90 ever connect
At 09:23 AM 9/5/2008 -0400, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote:
On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as many as 80
...
I came across older
Charlie Coleman wrote:
At 09:23 AM 9/5/2008 -0400, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote:
On Thu, September 4, 2008 11:23 pm, KAM.covad wrote:
All the responses are good. You will always get better performance with
one user, that is a given. But I have installations with as many as 80
Well I use direct table access and since Windows 98, we've never has any
corruption. It seems all corruption in the past has all been related to
hardware.
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Charlie Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Charlie Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed issues
Some points to look for
Is the app being run from a server ? Does it open data on load ? Have you
tried it from other machines in case it's a nic problem?
Allen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Savage
Sent: 04 September 2008 23:17
It's almost with 100% likely to be your anti-virus software scanning network
drives. Disable the anti-virus software from scanning your network drive and
that should fix your problem.
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Speed
Back in the days of VFP3 I had noticed the tables on a multi-user solution
were noticeable snappier when a single user was accessing them for read or
write purposes, as opposed to when additional users were accessing the
tables. I did not notice any appreciable difference between 2 and 2 usrs,
, 2008 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Speed issues - multiuser application
It's almost with 100% likely to be your anti-virus software
scanning network drives. Disable the anti-virus software from
scanning your network drive and that should fix your problem.
--- On Thu, 9/4/08
://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4236924
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Gil Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Gil Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Speed issues - multiuser application
To: profox@leafe.com
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 6:20 PM
Excellent thought, I am sorry I missed that one
Gil Hale wrote:
snipped
All that said, the difference in performance on the P75 machines was
noticeable in terms of a few seconds (like 3 seconds instead of 1 second for
some processes). I never saw multi-user access result in a
seconds-become-minutes impact. You aren't running under Vista
Solutions General Account [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Speed issues - multiuser application
Gil Hale wrote:
snipped
All that said, the difference in performance on the P75 machines was
noticeable in terms of a few
.
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, KAM.covad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: KAM.covad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Speed issues - multiuser application
To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 11:23 PM
All the responses are good. You
On 7/14/06, Steve Ellenoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, for the confusion, I had wrote up on my blog what speed send
does ( and provided link to blog ).. ;)
Oh, so now you want us to read the original post before we shoot our
mouths off with an answer? You haven't been here long have you?
cursoradapter updategram
Andrew Davies MBCS CITP
- AndyD 8-)#
**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
On 7/14/06, Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/06, Steve Ellenoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know of something comparable to pcAnywhere's Speed Send
that can be purchased for VFP integration?
You'll have to tell us what Speed Send does.
If it transfers files quickly by
Sorry, for the confusion, I had wrote up on my blog what speed send
does ( and provided link to blog ).. ;)
But yes, basically it's very intelligent file diffing used by
pcanywhere to synchronize files.
I've read up on rsync quite a lot thanks to your suggestions, and it
sounds perfect,
Thanks for the info Ted!
As previously posted, one implementation idea was to backup/sync
database files.
Another was to improve the speed of a custom application that I have
to support where data is stored centrally (DBF), but the data can be
worked on by the salesforce on their laptops.
60 matches
Mail list logo
