Re: [WebDNA] Re: Hard-coded db write delay when running certain code?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106230
interpreted = N
texte = ok, i thought you were mentionning the timestamp for the database file =itself, not the one associated with the recorded [append].On Jan 31, 2011, at 16:56, Kenneth Grome wrote:> > > but once again I will remind you that flushing to disk> > > has nothing to do with append times!> >=20> > yes, it has: with option "Automatically commit databases> > to disk after modification", the [append] tags will be> > processed one at a time, and if your db is something> > like 500MB and your disk writes at 100MB/s, then it will> > take *at least* 5 seconds to write.> What I meant was that the timestamp will be recorded in the RAM copy =of the db at the exact time when WebDNA interprets the append context, =not later when that data is eventually flushed to disk.> Newly appended records may not yet appear in the disk copy when you =open that file in a text editor, but those new records -- with the =correct append times -- still exist in the RAM copy.=20> So unless I'm missing something I think I have to stick with my =original claim that flushing to disk has no effect on append times. =20> Sincerely,> Kenneth Grome> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug =Reporting:support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
ok, i thought you were mentionning the timestamp for the database file =itself, not the one associated with the recorded
[append].On Jan 31, 2011, at 16:56, Kenneth Grome wrote:> > > but once again I will remind you that flushing to disk> > > has nothing to do with append times!> >=20> > yes, it has: with option "Automatically commit databases> > to disk after modification", the
[append] tags will be> > processed one at a time, and if your db is something> > like 500MB and your disk writes at 100MB/s, then it will> > take *at least* 5 seconds to write.> What I meant was that the timestamp will be recorded in the RAM copy =of the db at the exact time when WebDNA interprets the append context, =not later when that data is eventually flushed to disk.> Newly appended records may not yet appear in the disk copy when you =open that file in a text editor, but those new records -- with the =correct append times -- still exist in the RAM copy.=20> So unless I'm missing something I think I have to stick with my =original claim that flushing to disk has no effect on append times. =20> Sincerely,> Kenneth Grome> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug =Reporting:support@webdna.us
christophe.billiottet@webdna.us
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:
Keep away (1997)
Summary: Webmerchant quitting (1998)
Encrypting WebDNA Templates and eligible files (1999)
[WebDNA] Major grep/convertchars linux issues when writing to db (2010)
japanese characters (1997)
Does this still work (2006)
MAC versions of WebCatalog 2.1 and WebMerchant 2.1 (1998)
[OT] Certs (2002)
Extended [ConvertChars] (1997)
Heads up, cookies *may* be outlawed in Europe (2001)
Date search - yes or no (1997)
[dos] command and [math] (1998)
Error Lob.db records error message not name (1997)
Email/Order to fax? (2003)
Announcing general availabilty of WebDNA 4.5 release (2002)
Email Formatting and Encryption (1998)
[ot] Any One Want A WebDNA Billing Program? (2003)
WebDNA CAPTCHA (2008)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
Some Questions (1997)