valentina 2

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 1/3/05 5:55 PM, "Olivier" <vidal_olivier at yahoo.fr> wrote:

Hi Oliver,

> Hello and happy New Year to all,
> 
> some small questions about valentina 2.
> 
> Valentina 2 is it much faster than valentina 1 (for a local
> application, always by using SQL) ?

Right now no. I see that 2.0 now is 2 times slower on addRecord.
Don't know about rest operations.
But we yet in debug mode for indexes for example.

> Or it is the about similar but offering more features ?

I think that AFTER we spend a month or so on optimzation and tunning,
We will make 2.0 faster of 1.x.

In the same time note, that if you will use UTF16, this make strings 2 times
bigger, so strings itself may work 2 times slower. On the other hand for
search and sort that use binary search and qsort slow down will be NOT
significant I think

> Is the cache memory of valentina now optimized beyond 20 Mb (50, 100,
> 200 Mb...) ?

Yes.

Cache in 2.0 is 300-500 times faster of 1.x.
The bigger cache the bigger difference to 1.x

> By using API of valentina (binary link..) rather than SQL, will the
> application be much faster (for a local application) ?

A LOTS!!!

More correct to say 5-10 times easy.

SQL adds significant overhead.

> Significantly ? Because in a previous e-mail Ruslan had said "SQL is
> slower because you need spend time to build strings" but it is not only
> to gain (with API) some milliseconds ?

But if you add in loop 100,000 records,
You need make 100,000 INSERT strings.

Valentina 2.0 offer here for SQL lovers -- binding,
This feature can speed up a lots such things.


-- 
Best regards,
Ruslan Zasukhin      [ I feel the need...the need for speed ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: ruslan at paradigmasoft.com
web: http://www.paradigmasoft.com

To subscribe to the Valentina mail list go to:
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
-------------------------------------------------------------