Re: DON'T use old cart file!
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1997
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 14257
interpreted = N
texte = Kenneth Grome wrote:
> >Actually this could just be 1 premade (atleast it will exist even empty) > >database that would store that > >info by clients account number and sku they purchase, then when they return it > >just looks them up via their account number that is of course different for > >each client. So each time they purchase something it would add that > >information to the big database, so you would have 1 database with the > >information for your 2,000 clients. (you probably could also add a Would you > >like your purchases saved for future reference and if they answer yes, then > >save it off, just in case its a one time purchase and they may not want it as > >part of their normal little custom shoppers helper section you are > >working on. > > > >Does that make sense? Maybe Ken can come up with a cleaner > >explaination to that. > > You wrote a fine explanation, Nevin! There's lots of ways to do > this. My approach keeps the amount of RAM needed for the databases to > a minimum by keeping a separate database for each customer, thus only > the databases actually in use at any one time would be open. > > Your idea is actually simpler to code in WebDNA, but that big > database (which would actually be a combination of all my small > custom databases) would have to remain open all the time ... and it > could actually become far larger than the main products database for > the whole store. > > Still, I doubt you'd see much of a difference in performance either > way, since WebCat's so fast to begin with ... :)Ahhh yes, but not thinking about the ever growing size of a database like this (if you have alot of shoppers a day, the database could grow rather quickly). Using the smaller databases and just opening them for the time you need them, then closing them out of ram would make far better use of ram, uses some nice features of WebCat, and the speed difference really would be unnoticable between the two ideas. Saves on having to spend a few bucks on more memory that is not needed. This is a great feature also to use if you have any databases that are not used very often, just set up WebDNA to close the database after you are done with it each time to save the ram needed, and even if usage of that database goes up, the speed of WebCat will allow it to still function quickly. Always fun to see the ways Ken comes up with WebCat usage. Nevin -- [[[[[ Nevin Lyne - admin@besites.com - LAN / WAN Consultant ]]]]]
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Kenneth Grome wrote: > >Actually this could just be 1 premade (atleast it will exist even empty) > >database that would store that > >info by clients account number and sku they purchase, then when they return it > >just looks them up via their account number that is of course different for > >each client. So each time they purchase something it would add that > >information to the big database, so you would have 1 database with the > >information for your 2,000 clients. (you probably could also add a Would you > >like your purchases saved for future reference and if they answer yes, then > >save it off, just in case its a one time purchase and they may not want it as > >part of their normal little custom shoppers helper section you are > >working on. > > > >Does that make sense? Maybe Ken can come up with a cleaner > >explaination to that. > > You wrote a fine explanation, Nevin! There's lots of ways to do > this. My approach keeps the amount of RAM needed for the databases to > a minimum by keeping a separate database for each customer, thus only > the databases actually in use at any one time would be open. > > Your idea is actually simpler to code in WebDNA, but that big > database (which would actually be a combination of all my small > custom databases) would have to remain open all the time ... and it > could actually become far larger than the main products database for > the whole store. > > Still, I doubt you'd see much of a difference in performance either > way, since WebCat's so fast to begin with ... :)Ahhh yes, but not thinking about the ever growing size of a database like this (if you have alot of shoppers a day, the database could grow rather quickly). Using the smaller databases and just opening them for the time you need them, then closing them out of ram would make far better use of ram, uses some nice features of WebCat, and the speed difference really would be unnoticable between the two ideas. Saves on having to spend a few bucks on more memory that is not needed. This is a great feature also to use if you have any databases that are not used very often, just set up WebDNA to close the database after you are done with it each time to save the ram needed, and even if usage of that database goes up, the speed of WebCat will allow it to still function quickly. Always fun to see the ways Ken comes up with WebCat usage. Nevin -- [[[[[ Nevin Lyne - admin@besites.com - LAN / WAN Consultant ]]]]]
N. Lyne
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
WebCatalog 2.0 b 15 mac (1997)
WebDNA versus ASP [OT] (2002)
Checking two required fields (1998)
Prevent multiple appends with Reload Button (1997)
WebCat2 several catalogs? (1997)
webcat- multiple selection in input field (1997)
PGP (2003)
Comments in db? (1997)
transferring values (1998)
[WebDNA] Format Days_To_Date (2008)
[WebDNA] WebSite Examples (2008)
Summaries (1999)
Multi-Row Tables from a search. (1997)
Database Structuring (again) (2003)
math on date? (1997)
help on email autoresponder (2003)
Stumpted Again (1997)
question: webdelivery folder and file (1997)
Web Catalog 2 demo (1997)
Adding up line items. (2000)