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

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2009


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 103042
interpreted = N
texte = Alex McCombie wrote: > On 7/27/09 10:47 PM, "Donovan Brooke" wrote: > >> Don't use the [sql] tag, use the newer ([sqlconnect] etc) tags/contexts. > For MYSQL. For MSSQL you are still in the SQL tag. > >> (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. > Don't you dare! Have been almost exclusively on the SQL tag for 4 years now. > I would hate to be deprecated! Don't worry Alex..: What I meant was, we need to allow a call [odbc..] that essentially does the same thing as [sql...]. We wouldn't delete [sql].. we'd just stop advertising it in the docs in favor of the less confusing [odbc..] context. Govinda was talking about "MySQL".. which we have native tags for that. >> 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. > Native (non-odbc) was supposed to be a long long long awaited direction for > DNA. Not so much anymore? Just curious. This has been working for years actually but was updated a bit in 6.2. We do have plans to integrate with other relational db's but I can't talk about that or guarantee anything right now. > As I said, the ODBC is working a-ok on Winbox versions but since the ODBC > creates new threads for every call, complicated pages can start really > dragging performance. Searching large datasets = quick and easy. Hundreds of > nested searches = slow (mostly because of the ODBC overhead). I suspect > native MSSQL would have a dramatic effect on this. > > AJM Right, native API's will always win out in performance. Donopvan -- Donovan Brooke WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us **[Square Bracket Utopia]** 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 (Donovan Brooke 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? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
  10. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA (Donovan Brooke 2009)
  12. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Patrick McCormick 2009)
  13. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
  14. Re: [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA (Donovan Brooke 2009)
  15. [WebDNA] 3-5 GB of native WebDNA db in RAM?, else MySQL w/WebDNA [SQL] tags, else skip WebDNA altogether? (Govinda 2009)
Alex McCombie wrote: > On 7/27/09 10:47 PM, "Donovan Brooke" wrote: > >> Don't use the [SQL] tag, use the newer ([SQLconnect] etc) tags/contexts. > For MYSQL. For MSSQL you are still in the SQL tag. > >> (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. > Don't you dare! Have been almost exclusively on the SQL tag for 4 years now. > I would hate to be deprecated! Don't worry Alex..: What I meant was, we need to allow a call [ODBC..] that essentially does the same thing as [sql...]. We wouldn't delete [SQL].. we'd just stop advertising it in the docs in favor of the less confusing [ODBC..] context. Govinda was talking about "MySQL".. which we have native tags for that. >> 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. > Native (non-ODBC) was supposed to be a long long long awaited direction for > DNA. Not so much anymore? Just curious. This has been working for years actually but was updated a bit in 6.2. We do have plans to integrate with other relational db's but I can't talk about that or guarantee anything right now. > As I said, the ODBC is working a-ok on Winbox versions but since the ODBC > creates new threads for every call, complicated pages can start really > dragging performance. Searching large datasets = quick and easy. Hundreds of > nested searches = slow (mostly because of the ODBC overhead). I suspect > native MSSQL would have a dramatic effect on this. > > AJM Right, native API's will always win out in performance. Donopvan -- Donovan Brooke WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us **[Square Bracket Utopia]** Donovan Brooke

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:

[WebDNA] Grep the whole page (2012) IIS4 & Password Authentication, request example (1998) flash-wc (2000) Add to Cart & List of Products (1997) [showif] and equality (1998) still having shipCost.db Problem (1997) Forms Search Questions (1997) Ranking search results (2002) Configuring E-mail (1997) SKU Question (1999) Table Loop Hoops (2000) A little syntax help (1997) WCS Newbie question (1997) LinkExchange (1997) select multiple 2 more cents (1997) Need relative path explanation (1997) Problems getting parameters passed into email. (1997) RE: Displaying Location (1997) PCS Frames (1997) Plugin or CGI or both (1997)