Re: WebDNA + SQL Server

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 47375
interpreted = N
texte = We've done it for clients, and have had good performance. I would say theWebDNA databases are faster, but I can't say how much faster. Like Johnmentioned, I think the speed depends on what you're running the site on andwhat calls you're making to SQL vs. WebDNA databases.I'd say a main drawback is the additional time you'll spend writing queriesfor SQL that you probably already have in WebDNA (that's been ourexperience, anyway). Another issue we've experienced is the licensing cost,which often causes clients to change their minds on SQL.That being said, we have had clients that are big Microsoft supporters andreally wanted their data stored in SQL. It took a bit longer to code, butthe performance is still good, and the WebDNA/SQL combination definitelyoutperforms the few ASP pages that are used for the clients' other sitesthat run on the same server.Brian LooperProject ManagerSmith Micro Software, Inc.-----Original Message-----From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of JohnPeacockSent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:36 AMTo: WebDNA TalkSubject: Re: WebDNA + SQL ServerAlain Russell wrote:> Can you let me know what performance is like ?WebCat is a RAM resident database, so it is likely to be 500-1000 timesfasterthan the fastest disk-based database, but it is obviously limited to theamountof available RAM. I always suggest 'nearline' rather than 'online' if youcanget away with it; i.e. WebCat always uses a 'recent' copy of the productiondata, where 'recent' is determined by how often updates are made.There is nothing to stop you from having the searchable database be inWebCatexclusively and the R/W databases be in some external SQL database. I wouldstrongly recommend against having all of your databases in SQL, since youwouldbe wasting your time using WebCat (see RAM resident database above ;~) andlikely your performance would be worse than ASP, for example.> Any other gotchas ?Just the usual:http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2002-04.htmlhttp://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/635463http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-22.htmlJohn--John PeacockDirector of Information Research and TechnologyRowman & Littlefield Publishing Group4720 Boston WayLanham, MD 20706301-459-3366 x.5010fax 301-429-5747-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail toWeb Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

We've done it for clients, and have had good performance. I would say theWebDNA databases are faster, but I can't say how much faster. Like Johnmentioned, I think the speed depends on what you're running the site on andwhat calls you're making to SQL vs. WebDNA databases.I'd say a main drawback is the additional time you'll spend writing queriesfor SQL that you probably already have in WebDNA (that's been ourexperience, anyway). Another issue we've experienced is the licensing cost,which often causes clients to change their minds on SQL.That being said, we have had clients that are big Microsoft supporters andreally wanted their data stored in SQL. It took a bit longer to code, butthe performance is still good, and the WebDNA/SQL combination definitelyoutperforms the few ASP pages that are used for the clients' other sitesthat run on the same server.Brian LooperProject ManagerSmith Micro Software, Inc.-----Original Message-----From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf Of JohnPeacockSent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:36 AMTo: WebDNA TalkSubject: Re: WebDNA + SQL ServerAlain Russell wrote:> Can you let me know what performance is like ?WebCat is a RAM resident database, so it is likely to be 500-1000 timesfasterthan the fastest disk-based database, but it is obviously limited to theamountof available RAM. I always suggest 'nearline' rather than 'online' if youcanget away with it; i.e. WebCat always uses a 'recent' copy of the productiondata, where 'recent' is determined by how often updates are made.There is nothing to stop you from having the searchable database be inWebCatexclusively and the R/W databases be in some external SQL database. I wouldstrongly recommend against having all of your databases in SQL, since youwouldbe wasting your time using WebCat (see RAM resident database above ;~) andlikely your performance would be worse than ASP, for example.> Any other gotchas ?Just the usual:http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2002-04.htmlhttp://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/635463http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-22.htmlJohn--John PeacockDirector of Information Research and TechnologyRowman & Littlefield Publishing Group4720 Boston WayLanham, MD 20706301-459-3366 x.5010fax 301-429-5747-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail toWeb Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Brian Looper

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: WebDNA + SQL Server

2003

Top Articles:

Related Readings: