Re: Database Strategy - more...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1998
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 18172
interpreted = N
texte = At 13:36 Uhr 10.06.1998, Marty Schmid wrote:> >Is it right that the decision for in-house FoxPro is fixed? > >Just to recap, there are two possible scenarios: > >A: In-house agents use the FoxPro solution and I try to keep the in-house >FoxPro database synched up with the on-line WebCat database. > or >B: We scrap the FoxPro database and use ONLY a WebCat database/server >solution which would be accessed via browser for both in-house agents and >outside web surfers.That depends on the kind of work they want to do. If the application ist rather complicated and dynamic which means it requires instant reaction within the various layouts, then a LAN-based solution is to be preferred. In this case (for example) the state of a popup menu can instantly change some variables in the same layout or the click on a button forces a printout... To accomplish this with any scripts will slow you down - these are native functions of well-known database programs. On the other hand - if the ping-pong game of a web-based solution is enough, than I would prefer YOUR idea, because it is cheaper, probably faster, and more flexible. And more innovative, of course. Additional argument for WebCat: if you make a proper interface, it spares a lot of training costs and time, because everyone can handle a web-browser!You have to make a workflow-model to determine which kind of solution fits the needs of the client. >We are estimating a total of about 25 queries a minute, inclusive of all >users.That means one query has 2.4 seconds available, minus serving time. I would estimate 1 to 1.5 seconds for the average query itself, on a fast server. So far I have seen WebCat can handle that if the programmer knows the circumstances. We have now from 0.23 to 0.75 seconds processing time for a single 10-items (max=10) WebCat list out of 900 records with some colored lines, on a Mac 9500 under WebTen. A G3 will improve that and - I believe - WebCat under WinNT has this speed either. I don't know what you are going to do, but with a less fashionable interface I am sure you can do rather complicated queries during this time. If you have a dedicated server and make heavy use of [include] on a fast disk (or an array) you will outperform some database with a big-mouth-designer ;-) Good wind for your WebCat solution! >The in-house net is 10baseT - our outside link would be a full T-1.Ok, you mentioned 15 users online via the web connection. Web has lower impact, so let us add 10 serious users to the 25 in-house users. Now we have 35, which is in fact a considerable number for a LAN database. That is too much for a low level program and a high-end application is too expensive and not perfectly fit for the web... Without guarantees - one or two fast servers and WebCat looks like a good solution. >I guess one of my questions would be, is it faster to have 25 users >searching against a multi-user FoxPro database or can a WebCat/server >solution be as fast?FoxPro is one of the programs which wanted to fight good old dBase and (excuse me) something like FileMaker. With 25 in-house clients it will reach the limit, from the view of perfomance. >Any database pros care to chime in?If you need a LAN-database with web-connection or even with some sort of interface for WebCat - I am a 4D developer, but we should discuss that via private mail ;-) Peter__________________________________________ Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.com Ostry & Partner - Ostry Internet Solutions Auhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austria fon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
At 13:36 Uhr 10.06.1998, Marty Schmid wrote:> >Is it right that the decision for in-house FoxPro is fixed? > >Just to recap, there are two possible scenarios: > >A: In-house agents use the FoxPro solution and I try to keep the in-house >FoxPro database synched up with the on-line WebCat database. > or >B: We scrap the FoxPro database and use ONLY a WebCat database/server >solution which would be accessed via browser for both in-house agents and >outside web surfers.That depends on the kind of work they want to do. If the application ist rather complicated and dynamic which means it requires instant reaction within the various layouts, then a LAN-based solution is to be preferred. In this case (for example) the state of a popup menu can instantly change some variables in the same layout or the click on a button forces a printout... To accomplish this with any scripts will slow you down - these are native functions of well-known database programs. On the other hand - if the ping-pong game of a web-based solution is enough, than I would prefer YOUR idea, because it is cheaper, probably faster, and more flexible. And more innovative, of course. Additional argument for WebCat: if you make a proper interface, it spares a lot of training costs and time, because everyone can handle a web-browser!You have to make a workflow-model to determine which kind of solution fits the needs of the client. >We are estimating a total of about 25 queries a minute, inclusive of all >users.That means one query has 2.4 seconds available, minus serving time. I would estimate 1 to 1.5 seconds for the average query itself, on a fast server. So far I have seen WebCat can handle that if the programmer knows the circumstances. We have now from 0.23 to 0.75 seconds processing time for a single 10-items (max=10) WebCat list out of 900 records with some colored lines, on a Mac 9500 under WebTen. A G3 will improve that and - I believe - WebCat under WinNT has this speed either. I don't know what you are going to do, but with a less fashionable interface I am sure you can do rather complicated queries during this time. If you have a dedicated server and make heavy use of
[include] on a fast disk (or an array) you will outperform some database with a big-mouth-designer ;-) Good wind for your WebCat solution! >The in-house net is 10baseT - our outside link would be a full T-1.Ok, you mentioned 15 users online via the web connection. Web has lower impact, so let us add 10 serious users to the 25 in-house users. Now we have 35, which is in fact a considerable number for a LAN database. That is too much for a low level program and a high-end application is too expensive and not perfectly fit for the web... Without guarantees - one or two fast servers and WebCat looks like a good solution. >I guess one of my questions would be, is it faster to have 25 users >searching against a multi-user FoxPro database or can a WebCat/server >solution be as fast?FoxPro is one of the programs which wanted to fight good old dBase and (excuse me) something like FileMaker. With 25 in-house clients it will reach the limit, from the view of perfomance. >Any database pros care to chime in?If you need a LAN-database with web-connection or even with some sort of interface for WebCat - I am a 4D developer, but we should discuss that via private mail ;-) Peter__________________________________________ Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.com Ostry & Partner - Ostry Internet Solutions Auhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austria fon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Peter Ostry
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:
Cookie still not working (1999)
Loop into field (1998)
Text data with spaces in them... (1997)
[OT] FTP client (2003)
[WebDNA] Here's how you can help (2008)
Showing specific [cart] contents (1998)
Time for a hard questions. (1997)
Secure server question (1997)
WebDNA and FTP (2003)
Location of Webcat site in folder hierarchy (1997)
Location of Webcat site in folder hierarchy (1997)
multiple skus (2000)
(1997)
syntax question, not in online refernce (1997)
Plugin or CGI or both (1997)
Mem per threads (1998)
[ShowNext] feature in 2.0 (1997)
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)
How is it done? (1998)
formatting dates from a field ... (1997)