Basic questions

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

on 5/10/03 11:26 AM, Kem Tekinay at ktekinay at mactechnologies.com wrote:

>> Have 4D claim that 4D 2003 is e.g. 10 times faster on search/sort
>> than 4D 6.7?
> 
> They say it's faster, but no actual numbers are given. But aren't the
> benchmarks based on v.6.0?

Kem, probably 6.0, but again, all words "it is know faster" usually related
to 1-2% speed up in ONE specific operation.

There was no breakthrough not for 6.7 not for 2003.

The worst thing in 4D is how it sorts.
Sometimes even FileMaker was faster of 4D.

As you understand, sorting affect such SQL operations as GROUP BY.
The biggest win of Valentina is SORTING on few fields.
As far as I know any other db cannot do this in such way as Valentina.

>> For example I recall, one have told that he love Object-Oriented language of
>> RB and OO design of Valentina for RB, comparing to procedural language of
>> 4D.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly the reason I was considering RB/VB, and I may still use
> it for part of the project. But the thing that really has me leaning towards
> 4D is the integrated web server stuff. Combining the web server with the
> database, and being able to distribute the web server using 4D Clients (new
> for 2003; Richard, did you know about this?) is really compelling. If I
> wanted to do this in RB, I'd either have to find a way to integrate it with
> an external web server or roll my own.

As web support we plan PHP Client.
It seems Apache + PHP is the most popular solution today.

Can you tell more about that Web server?

> Ruslan, I thank you for the information, but I have to agree with much of
> Richard's analysis in this case. I look forward to future projects where I
> know that Valentina will be the proper choice.

Agree.

> In the meantime, if you still have your 4D and Valentina test apps and would
> like me to run them with the latest updates, I'll be happy to do that. Heck,
> while you're at it, send me the FileMaker app and I'll test that on 6.0 too.

Kem, I have simply take phone base of our city.
I think you should be able take ANY data and get comparable results.

Also note. Often people say that each DB vendor make tests that show his db
from good side.

If you look on my tests, you will see that they go from simplest (one field)
to more and more complex. Actually this tests must be added by new
multi-table tests. Now Valentina can do joings. And it do this also
perfectly. Look on Pauls comments on testimonials page.
Note that Paul have use AppleScript (!!! slow) to do joing self, because on
that time Valentina was not able do joins. And even in this way he say
Valentina was much faster of mySQL. Today Valentina do joins on internal
kernel level, and I think results must be tens times better for Valentina...

When we get 2.0 I will spend 2-3 weeks to tests Valentina against mySQL, 4D,
SQL Server...very interesting. At least for now, nobody have told that
Valentina is slower other.


-- 
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
-------------------------------------------------------------