Valentina 2.0 and RB 5.5

[Dimitris Tsarouhas]

On Απρ 02, 2005, at 11:37 μμ, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:

> On 4/2/05 11:31 PM, "Dimitris Tsarouhas" <mitsakos at helmug.gr> wrote:
>
>>>>> 6. What do I need to do to create and connect to a new valentina 
>>>>> 2.0
>>>>> db?
>>>>> I currently (with RB database) do
>>>>>
>>>>> dim db as realdatabase
>>>>> Dim f as FolderItem
>>>>>
>>>>>    db=New REALdatabase
>>>>>    db.databaseFile=f
>>>>>    If db.CreateDatabaseFile then
>>>>>      //proceed with database operations...
>>>>>
>>>>> I downloaded a demo 'V4RB_2' and found a plugin inside, but I don't
>>>>> know how to create a new valentina file via rb code.
>>>
>>> You should change 1 string in your code:
>>>
>>> Db = new VRBDataBase
>>>
>>> The rest of code must work.
>>>
>>> But it will work in 2.0.2 release.
>>> I will try to prepare example.
>>

I tried this, and it does not work with 2.0.1
I 'll try again with 2.0.2 as you said

>> 1. The Valentina database files are stored in a database folder, like
>> REALDatabase? (so I assign a folder to the db.databasefile?)
>
> No. you can put Valentina db file(s) when you want.
>
so, the new file(s) are created and controlled automatically by the 
plugin?

>> 2. Tables with indexed fields on REALDatabase are querried faster, but
>> insert records slower. With valentina, is it a performance problem to
>> have one or two fields per table always indexed, or is this a bad
>> practice too?
>
> This is rule for ANY db.
> You must have indexes. And often you should have a lots of indexes.
> This is trade of.
Do you advise me to never drop the two main table indexes? Currently I 
drop the indexes when I am in 'insert records' mode, to gain some 
speed, and I create again the indexes when I do 'querries'
Is there anywhere on the net some 'general speed tips' for database 
operations that I could read? I have rather limited knowledge of 
databases and SQL :(

>
>> 3. Any performance tips for valentina and RB? (I want to use my RB app
>> on some older slower machines (233Mhz macs and 500Mhz celerons) and
>> still have decent performance.
>
> This is deep question. You will find asnwers step by step.
> Here a lots of aspects.

ok. thank you! :)