Re: Here we go again...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66666
interpreted = N
texte = I've also never used any flavor of SQL, but I've dabbled with Access -- to the point where I realized I could do everything I was trying to do in WebDNA in about 1/4 the time :)... yeah, I've tried to explain to non-webdna developers that I simply use tab-delimted text files to do my thing and they just stare at me blankly... it's sort of funny to me now. -Dan On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:42:44 -0600 Pat McCormick
wrote: > Actually WebDNA doesn't use a flat file. That is the case for the older Typhoon version, but >WebDNA, simply because it can have multiple databases open, is no longer a flat file system. > > The difference is that WebDNA doesn't formalize the structure of a db in any way. You are >responsible for define a sku or key field and there are some nice tools to assist the process, >like [cart]. Comparing that with SQL or Access, those products get more antsy about key fields, >and field formats in general. They also enforce the idea of a database consisting of a >collection of tables, which is also confusing nonsense. > > The purpose for products like Oracle, SQL and other "databases" is to encrypt your text so that >you need to buy their products to see your text. Web-DNA is the un-database database. Create >your own relationships. All key fields are optional. Structure your project any way you want, >even using virtual databases ([table]), and to make it even better, keep all the data in plain >text so you can x-ray the files at any time using any text tool. Ya gotta love that! > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Bess Ho wrote: > >> WebDNA is using flat file for storing data. It is not a >> relationship database like MySQL. Also once your flat file grow >> beyond roughly 2 GB (check with Network Admin to verify the size), >> you can't run data very well. The go-around solution is to break >> down WebDNA database into smaller chunks for faster performance. >> You really need Relationship Database for scaleable application. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of >> Kenneth Grome >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:55 AM >> To: WebDNA Talk >> Subject: Re: Here we go again... >> >> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:05:55 -0500, Terry Wilson wrote: >>> ... you never know when you'll be required to start doing something a >>> certain way; or at some point, an old solution just isn't good enough >>> or fast enough any longer ... >> >> >> Example: >> >> A client of mine preferred webdna but his searches were too slow, >> so he hired me to debug and fix them. His code was fine but the >> database files were not configured to optimize webdna's >> performance, so I could only recommend two options: (1) >> reconfigure the databases (not a good solution because updated data >> files came from another source frequently) ... or (2) switch to >> MySQL and give that a try ... >> >> I really didn't know if MySQL could handle the task any faster than >> webdna and I told him this, but he went for it anyways. He said >> webdna hosting cost too much anyways, and since he wasn't committed >> to using it on his server anyways (although he enjoyed personally >> mocking up web sites because it's east for a non-programmer to use) >> he decided to go with PHP and MySQL. >> >> The moment we switched his search times dropped from about 10 >> seconds to less than two seconds. I think the reason is two-fold: >> (1) he had database files that were too large for webdna to RAM- >> cache efficiently, and (2) we were doing nested searches, and >> webdna is pretty slow sometimes when using nested searches, >> especially with large db files. >> >> The bottom line is that he "outgrew" webdna for use on his server, >> and now he's happy again with a faster free solution. I think this >> type of situation is going to become more and more common as webdna >> continues to be less and less aggressively developed, supported and >> marketed. >> >> Sincerely, >> Kenneth Grome >> >> owner@kengrome.com >> kengrome@gmail.com >> www.kengrome.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > digest@talk.smithmicro.com> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > digest@talk.smithmicro.com> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
I've also never used any flavor of SQL, but I've dabbled with Access -- to the point where I realized I could do everything I was trying to do in WebDNA in about 1/4 the time :)... yeah, I've tried to explain to non-webdna developers that I simply use tab-delimted text files to do my thing and they just stare at me blankly... it's sort of funny to me now. -Dan On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:42:44 -0600 Pat McCormick wrote: > Actually WebDNA doesn't use a flat file. That is the case for the older Typhoon version, but >WebDNA, simply because it can have multiple databases open, is no longer a flat file system. > > The difference is that WebDNA doesn't formalize the structure of a db in any way. You are >responsible for define a sku or key field and there are some nice tools to assist the process, >like [cart]. Comparing that with SQL or Access, those products get more antsy about key fields, >and field formats in general. They also enforce the idea of a database consisting of a >collection of tables, which is also confusing nonsense. > > The purpose for products like Oracle, SQL and other "databases" is to encrypt your text so that >you need to buy their products to see your text. Web-DNA is the un-database database. Create >your own relationships. All key fields are optional. Structure your project any way you want, >even using virtual databases ([table]), and to make it even better, keep all the data in plain >text so you can x-ray the files at any time using any text tool. Ya gotta love that! > > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Bess Ho wrote: > >> WebDNA is using flat file for storing data. It is not a >> relationship database like MySQL. Also once your flat file grow >> beyond roughly 2 GB (check with Network Admin to verify the size), >> you can't run data very well. The go-around solution is to break >> down WebDNA database into smaller chunks for faster performance. >> You really need Relationship Database for scaleable application. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of >> Kenneth Grome >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:55 AM >> To: WebDNA Talk >> Subject: Re: Here we go again... >> >> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:05:55 -0500, Terry Wilson wrote: >>> ... you never know when you'll be required to start doing something a >>> certain way; or at some point, an old solution just isn't good enough >>> or fast enough any longer ... >> >> >> Example: >> >> A client of mine preferred webdna but his searches were too slow, >> so he hired me to debug and fix them. His code was fine but the >> database files were not configured to optimize webdna's >> performance, so I could only recommend two options: (1) >> reconfigure the databases (not a good solution because updated data >> files came from another source frequently) ... or (2) switch to >> MySQL and give that a try ... >> >> I really didn't know if MySQL could handle the task any faster than >> webdna and I told him this, but he went for it anyways. He said >> webdna hosting cost too much anyways, and since he wasn't committed >> to using it on his server anyways (although he enjoyed personally >> mocking up web sites because it's east for a non-programmer to use) >> he decided to go with PHP and MySQL. >> >> The moment we switched his search times dropped from about 10 >> seconds to less than two seconds. I think the reason is two-fold: >> (1) he had database files that were too large for webdna to RAM- >> cache efficiently, and (2) we were doing nested searches, and >> webdna is pretty slow sometimes when using nested searches, >> especially with large db files. >> >> The bottom line is that he "outgrew" webdna for use on his server, >> and now he's happy again with a faster free solution. I think this >> type of situation is going to become more and more common as webdna >> continues to be less and less aggressively developed, supported and >> marketed. >> >> Sincerely, >> Kenneth Grome >> >> owner@kengrome.com >> kengrome@gmail.com >> www.kengrome.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > digest@talk.smithmicro.com> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > digest@talk.smithmicro.com> >> Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
"Dan Strong"
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:
carriage returns in data (1997)
[TaxableTotal] - not working with AOL and IE (1997)
How to Sort Summ data ? (1997)
PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997)
Not really WebCat (1997)
latest version? (1998)
sendmail formatting (2001)
I have observed and I am gone. (1998)
WebCat2b12 - nesting [tags] (1997)
Thanks Grant (1997)
PCS Frames (1997)
sorting dates (1999)
Parsing overhead for commenting out line endings (2003)
Netscape 3.01 can't see db in form (1997)
Emailer question (1998)
Wishlist;: Was Runtime version ... (2003)
Alternating colors (1997)
2.0 Info (1997)
One Hour Email (2002)
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)