valentina 2

[Olivier]

hmmm if I indeed understands, valentina 2 is much slower for the moment 
than valentina 1 by using SQL but about so fast by using API ?

As a lot of people I think, I hesitate to use Valentina 2 from now on. 
I began a project with Valentina 1. This project must be absolutely 
ended by March 20th. I am very enthusiastic to use valentina 2 (by API) 
for this project now because if the version 1.0 of my software will be 
already based on valentina 2, I can probably make much more quickly 
updates for the next versions. My software will be built well from the 
beginning.

On the other hand, if my software 1.0 is not stable, finally not much 
more than with valentina 1 and if I lose a lot of time in the 
corrections of (valentina 2) bugs, I hesitate and I wonder if I am not 
going to wait for my next project to use valentina 2.

As customer and user of valentina, of whom do you think of it ?

PS : it is damage that there not in the documentation some pages to 
explain "philosophy" and paradigmes of  valentina 2.

olivier


Le 3 janv. 05, à 17:06, Ruslan Zasukhin a écrit :

> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Valentina-beta mailing list
> Valentina-beta at lists.macserve.net
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina-beta
>