Re: AutoCommit Preference?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1998
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 16464
interpreted = N
texte = >>What triggers this auto-commit activity that makes it slower when it's On than when it's Off? > >If any databases are dirty after the page is returned, they are written to disk. That takes some time, but is of course safer if you have an unstable server. > >>Is it triggered every time a page is requested? > >Yes, but if no databases are dirty, then there is no slowdown.All I was trying to figure out is whether or not having the AutoCommit set to T is going to make WebCat slower than if I continued to use [closedatabase] tags after all my replace and delete commands, like I've been doing all along.From what you're telling me, it seems like using AutoCommit would be even faster than using [closedatabase] tags -- because the [closedatabase] tag actually purges the data from RAM in addition to writing the data to disk, which means using the [closedatabase] tag will always require reloading of the data from disk the next time the db is called.So *assuming* that the AutoCommit checking does NOT slow down the server when the db's are clean, using the new AutoCommit feature would actually be FASTER than using [closedatabase] tags, right? Ah, but how would this compare with using [commitdatabase] tags instead of [closedatabase] tags?Will setting AutoCommit to T be faster than setting it to F and using [commitdatabase] tags after replace and delete commands?Sincerely, Ken Grome 808-737-6499 WebDNA Solutions mailto:ken@webdna.net http://www.webdna.net
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>>What
triggers this auto-commit activity that makes it slower when it's On than when it's Off? > >If any databases are dirty after the page is returned, they are written to disk. That takes some time, but is of course safer if you have an unstable server. > >>Is it triggered every time a page is requested? > >Yes, but if no databases are dirty, then there is no slowdown.All I was trying to figure out is whether or not having the AutoCommit set to T is going to make WebCat slower than if I continued to use
[closedatabase] tags after all my replace and delete commands, like I've been doing all along.From what you're telling me, it seems like using AutoCommit would be even faster than using
[closedatabase] tags -- because the
[closedatabase] tag actually purges the data from RAM in addition to writing the data to disk, which means using the
[closedatabase] tag will always require reloading of the data from disk the next time the db is called.So *assuming* that the AutoCommit checking does NOT slow down the server when the db's are clean, using the new AutoCommit feature would actually be FASTER than using
[closedatabase] tags, right? Ah, but how would this compare with using
[commitdatabase] tags instead of
[closedatabase] tags?Will setting AutoCommit to T be faster than setting it to F and using
[commitdatabase] tags after replace and delete commands?Sincerely, Ken Grome 808-737-6499 WebDNA Solutions mailto:ken@webdna.net http://www.webdna.net
Kenneth Grome
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:
ooops...WebCatalog [FoundItems] Problem - LONG - (1997)
Revisit: speed test (2002)
Using Applescript to process WebCatalog functions (1998)
[no_cache]?! (2000)
HELP WITH DATES (1997)
Any help gratefully appreciated (2001)
orderfile and setlineitems (1998)
WebCatalog dying in NT (1998)
Template not found error messages (1997)
find with exceptions (1997)
Intermitent problem using [referrer] (1997)
Hiding Brands (2004)
Cookie woes with Mac IE4 (1998)
Summing fields (1997)
Show if time tags (1997)
Multiple prices (1997)
Sorting a Search... (1998)
wo search help (1999)
emailer (1997)
SiteEdit Pro Update Announcement (1997)