Re: [WebDNA] To Commitdatabase or Not to Commitdatabase
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2012
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 108440
interpreted = N
texte = We did a test that i published no so long ago: If you commit databases to disk after modification, it will entirely = depend on the size of your databases and the frequency you write it to = disk: a standard 7200rpm drive is usually able to write 70MB/s. So, if = you get one new [append] every second and your database is a 100MB one, = then you might expect serious I/O disk activity and probably some = latency. The speed difference with "Only commit databases to disk when = instructed" will be a huge one. If the database is 2MB only, the = difference will be smaller. We did some tests that i published not long ago: Automatically commit databases to disk after modification = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- WebDNA 7.0.628 iMac 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM Open a database (2 fields), append 10000 records.......................: = 5 s Only commit databases to disk when instructed = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- WebDNA 7.0.628 iMac 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM Open a database (2 fields), append 10000 records.......................: = 0 s Note that this does not measure one single database write, but rather = 10,000 successive writes - chris On Feb 2, 2012, at 16:48, Govinda wrote: >> The reason for my question above was to figure out if my next move = should be enabling
or just taking on the task of doing a = after (more or less) all of my [append] or [replace] tags. >>=20 >> If I was to gain speed / performance by choosing one over the other = then that is what I am looking for. >=20 > I don't know. Maybe someone (WSC?) has clocked the difference. =20 > You might able to make the speed tests yourself, if you wanted. > I am guessing it is the same internal mechanism, and so no speed = difference.. (assuming you put a [commitdatabase...] after *every* = write operation). >=20 > Personally, if I wanted to be sure every write operation resulted in = an updated disk copy, I would not bother any more more than just turning = on the auto-commit feature. >=20 > -G >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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:
We did a test that i published no so long ago: If you commit databases to disk after modification, it will entirely = depend on the size of your databases and the frequency you write it to = disk: a standard 7200rpm drive is usually able to write 70MB/s. So, if = you get one new [append] every second and your database is a 100MB one, = then you might expect serious I/O disk activity and probably some = latency. The speed difference with "Only commit databases to disk when = instructed" will be a huge one. If the database is 2MB only, the = difference will be smaller. We did some tests that i published not long ago: Automatically commit databases to disk after modification = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- WebDNA 7.0.628 iMac 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM Open a database (2 fields), append 10000 records.......................: = 5 s Only commit databases to disk when instructed = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- WebDNA 7.0.628 iMac 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM Open a database (2 fields), append 10000 records.......................: = 0 s Note that this does not measure one single database write, but rather = 10,000 successive writes - chris On Feb 2, 2012, at 16:48, Govinda wrote: >> The reason for my question above was to figure out if my next move = should be enabling or just taking on the task of doing a = after (more or less) all of my [append] or [replace] tags. >>=20 >> If I was to gain speed / performance by choosing one over the other = then that is what I am looking for. >=20 > I don't know. Maybe someone (WSC?) has clocked the difference. =20 > You might able to make the speed tests yourself, if you wanted. > I am guessing it is the same internal mechanism, and so no speed = difference.. (assuming you put a [commitdatabase...] after *every* = write operation). >=20 > Personally, if I wanted to be sure every write operation resulted in = an updated disk copy, I would not bother any more more than just turning = on the auto-commit feature. >=20 > -G >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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:
[OT] Authorize.net (2003)
Price + Texte (1999)
WebCat2 - [format thousands] (1997)
More Applescript (1997)
Scoping rules in WebDNA 4.0 (2000)
MacAuthorize hub, no modal password dialog? (1997)
what servers are supported for Typhoon? (1997)
Weird bug, or is there something amiss? (1997)
[OT] Appropriate Signature??? (2003)
[LINEITEMS] (2000)
Combining Searches (1998)
shownext not showing next...still r2 (1997)
Resolving variables into field names-resolved! (1998)
[WebDNA] WebDNA Showcase? (2008)
another problem (1997)
Banners (1997)
HomePage Caution (1997)
Netscape v. IE (1997)
WebCat2: Items xx to xx shown, etc. (1997)
Shared databases (2003)