Speedtest DBF vs. LetoDB and mySQL

[Otto]

Dear James,
may I ask what speed you get from your internet provider.

Best regards,
Otto

[James Bott]

Officially, 150Mbps but right now it is 130Mbps.

[hmpaquito]

hi Otto,

how many PC are you use for that Test ?

it does not make Sence to test only with 1 x PC
DBF will not use "Share-Mode" when only 1 x PC access DBF

so you need al least 2 x "active" PC and Server to run a Test with DBF
also use UNC Path to access DBF to be sure to use same "IP-Connection" and not Lanmanager with Drive-Letter

Jimmy

Hi,

I think in dbf exclusive or shared mode is configured by programmer, only by programmer.

Regards

[Jimmy]

hi,

I think in dbf exclusive or shared mode is configured by programmer, only by programmer.

do you know how "Share" Mode work with SMB
DBF are NOT made for Network it must "Share" a "File-Based" System using SMB

SMB will "slow down" when 2nd User open same DBF -> "Opportunistic Locking"
so i ask for at least 2 x PC and "Server" to simulate Access Time.

that is the Benefit of a Client / Server System where you do not have "direct Access" to Data.

---

as i can say DBF is faster when work "Record-based" e.g. when SEEK()
SQL will be much faster when have a "big Filter" where you can´t build a Index / SCOPE for DBF to "limit" it.

[James Bott]

Jimmy,

DBF are NOT made for Network it must "Share" a "File-Based" System using SMB

SMB will "slow down" when 2nd User open same DBF -> "Opportunistic Locking"
so i ask for at least 2 x PC and "Server" to simulate Access Time.

I just opened five copies of my test browse program, all from One Drive, and they are each just as fast as the first one. They are all opened in shared mode and browsing the same 1 million record file with a scope. Each one opens in less than a second.

as i can say DBF is faster when work "Record-based" e.g. when SEEK()
SQL will be much faster when have a "big Filter" where you can´t build a Index / SCOPE for DBF to "limit" it

I don't doubt that, but I haven't really had a situation where I couldn't use a scope.

[Jimmy]

hi,

i never work with "One Drive" so i do not know about its Cache
i´m not sure what "Browse" is under FiveWin ... like Cl*pper or GRID ?

"Browse" using a "DbSkipper" are slow while GRID can be fast using LVN_GETDISPINFO Notify Event.

as i can say DBF is faster when work "Record-based" e.g. when SEEK()
SQL will be much faster when have a "big Filter" where you can´t build a Index / SCOPE for DBF to "limit" it

I don't doubt that, but I haven't really had a situation where I couldn't use a scope.

guess you have a "Filter" like x < y < z and that on 20 FIELDs.
you can not well use Index / SCOPE so you have to check every Record.

[James Bott]

Jimmy,

i never work with "OneDrive" so i do not know about its Cache

Nor do I.

i´m not sure what "Browse" is under FiveWin ... like Cl*pper or GRID ?

I am using the built-in Browse() function of FiveWin.

"Browse" using a "DbSkipper" are slow while GRID can be fast using LVN_GETDISPINFO Notify Event.

Browse() uses a skip I presume. A new page loads in about a second from OneDrive.

guess you have a "Filter" like x < y < z and that on 20 FIELDs.
you can not well use Index / SCOPE so you have to check every Record.

Well, I have been programming since the 1970s and I don't recall ever needing a 20 field filter.

I agree that SQL has a lot to offer, but DBFs do also. I am not claiming the DBFs can do everything SQL can do, but for most programs they have worked well for me.

[Otto]

Hi Jimmy,
xBrowse is our (FIVEWIN) listbox.
c: \ fwh \ source \ classes \ xbrowse.prg

Here you can find the complete source code of xBrowse.
The good thing about Fivewin is that you have the complete source code.
Nothing is hidden!

Best regards,
Otto