No problem, thanks Chris!
Sincerely,
Kenneth Grome
> 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!
> > >
> > > 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. 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. 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <talk@webdna.us>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <talk-leave@webdna.us>
> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us
> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
--Boundary-01=_nrwRNSAxXnKBmQx-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
|
No problem, thanks Chris!
Sincerely,
Kenneth Grome
> 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!
> > >
> > > 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. 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. 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <talk@webdna.us>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <talk-leave@webdna.us>
> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us
> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
--Boundary-01=_nrwRNSAxXnKBmQx-- Kenneth GromeDOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
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...