Re: [WebDNA] Re: Hard-coded db write delay when running certain code?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2011

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 106228
interpreted = N
texte = --Boundary-01=_gXwRNlhi2tWsOaXContent-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit> > but once again I will remind you that flushing to disk> > has nothing to do with append times!> > yes, it has: with option "Automatically commit databases> to disk after modification", the [append] tags will be> processed one at a time, and if your db is something> like 500MB and your disk writes at 100MB/s, then it will> take *at least* 5 seconds to write.What I meant was that the timestamp will be recorded in the RAM copy of the db at the exact time when WebDNA interprets the append context, not later when that data is eventually flushed to disk.Newly appended records may not yet appear in the disk copy when you open that file in a text editor, but those new records -- with the correct append times -- still exist in the RAM copy. So unless I'm missing something I think I have to stick with my original claim that flushing to disk has no effect on append times. Sincerely,Kenneth Grome--Boundary-01=_gXwRNlhi2tWsOaXContent-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > but once again I will remind you that flushing to disk

> > has nothing to do with append times!

> yes, it has: with option "Automatically commit databases

> to disk after modification", the [append] tags will be

> processed one at a time, and if your db is something

> like 500MB and your disk writes at 100MB/s, then it will

> take *at least* 5 seconds to write.

What I meant was that the timestamp will be recorded in the RAM copy of the db at the exact time when WebDNA interprets the append context, not later when that data is eventually flushed to disk.

Newly appended records may not yet appear in the disk copy when you open that file in a text editor, but those new records -- with the correct append times -- still exist in the RAM copy.

So unless I'm missing something I think I have to stick with my original claim that flushing to disk has no effect on append times.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Grome

--Boundary-01=_gXwRNlhi2tWsOaX-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: [WebDNA] Hard-coded db write delay when running certain code? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2011)
[WebDNA] Hard-coded db write delay when running certain code? (Kenneth Grome 2011)

--Boundary-01=_gXwRNlhi2tWsOaXContent-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit> > but once again I will remind you that flushing to disk> > has nothing to do with append times!> > yes, it has: with option "Automatically commit databases> to disk after modification", the [append] tags will be> processed one at a time, and if your db is something> like 500MB and your disk writes at 100MB/s, then it will> take *at least* 5 seconds to write.What I meant was that the timestamp will be recorded in the RAM copy of the db at the exact time when WebDNA interprets the append context, not later when that data is eventually flushed to disk.Newly appended records may not yet appear in the disk copy when you open that file in a text editor, but those new records -- with the correct append times -- still exist in the RAM copy. So unless I'm missing something I think I have to stick with my original claim that flushing to disk has no effect on append times. Sincerely,Kenneth Grome--Boundary-01=_gXwRNlhi2tWsOaXContent-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit