Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2009


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 103036
interpreted = N
texte = > [snip] >> D., >> thanks for your reply. >> The db's would be hit alot. The site is based on a kind of search >> engine model. The searches would be narrowed by geography and then >> further narrowed by topic, subtopic1, subtopic2, ... >> How are the [SQL] tags holding up in production for you guys using >> them? >> Any more feedback, and by anyone, would be really >> appreciated! ... I am the responsible guy on this point and the >> truth is I have no experience with monstrous db's like this. >> -Thanks >> -G > > > Don't use the [sql] tag, use the newer ([sqlconnect] etc) tags/ > contexts. > > (we should probably deprecate the [sql] tag and change it > to [odbc] or something more appropriate.. because that is what > it is and it is confusing. > The new MySQL tags/contexts work just fine in our tests so far. > This is an area we have started to look into more deeply. We haven't > tested large databases > yet, but joins and other (slightly complicated) MySQL queries have > proved > to work great and as expected. It is required to learn about MySQL > of course when using these newer contexts. > > We will get into even deeper testing of these contexts > in the near future, but from what I've seen so far, I'm not fearful of > recommending it's use. > > Donovan OK, thanks! It looks like we may help test it then! ;-) Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Palle Bo Nielsen 2009)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Palle Bo Nielsen 2009)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Palle Bo Nielsen 2009)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  10. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Patrick McCormick 2009)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  12. [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
> [snip] >> D., >> thanks for your reply. >> The db's would be hit alot. The site is based on a kind of search >> engine model. The searches would be narrowed by geography and then >> further narrowed by topic, subtopic1, subtopic2, ... >> How are the [SQL] tags holding up in production for you guys using >> them? >> Any more feedback, and by anyone, would be really >> appreciated! ... I am the responsible guy on this point and the >> truth is I have no experience with monstrous db's like this. >> -Thanks >> -G > > > Don't use the [SQL] tag, use the newer ([SQLconnect] etc) tags/ > contexts. > > (we should probably deprecate the [SQL] tag and change it > to [ODBC] or something more appropriate.. because that is what > it is and it is confusing. > The new MySQL tags/contexts work just fine in our tests so far. > This is an area we have started to look into more deeply. We haven't > tested large databases > yet, but joins and other (slightly complicated) MySQL queries have > proved > to work great and as expected. It is required to learn about MySQL > of course when using these newer contexts. > > We will get into even deeper testing of these contexts > in the near future, but from what I've seen so far, I'm not fearful of > recommending it's use. > > Donovan OK, thanks! It looks like we may help test it then! ;-) Govinda

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

WebCat for Unix?? (1997) A simple email page? (1999) Empty Shopping Carts? (1998) searching more then one (1999) Document Contains No Data! (1997) authenticate (1999) Your Pay (2004) WebCatalog Upgrade Pricing? (1997) WebCat2b12--[searchstring] bug (1997) More on the email templates (1997) Banner DNA (1997) Solution: Replace/Commit not Replacing/Commiting (2000) RePost: NAT and the CART (1999) Applescript error (1998) Using Communigate Pro on Mac OS X Server (2000) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [showif][search][/showif] (1997) Problems with [Search] param - Mac Plugin b15 (1997) webcat feature request (1997) New servers and new inline cache (1997) Emailer & IMail List Server (1998)