Re: Database Strategy - more...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 1998
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 18172
interpreted = N
texte = At 13:36 Uhr 10.06.1998, Marty Schmid wrote:> >Is it right that the decision for in-house FoxPro is fixed?>>Just to recap, there are two possible scenarios:>>A: In-house agents use the FoxPro solution and I try to keep the in-house>FoxPro database synched up with the on-line WebCat database.> or>B: We scrap the FoxPro database and use ONLY a WebCat database/server>solution which would be accessed via browser for both in-house agents and>outside web surfers.That depends on the kind of work they want to do. If the application istrather complicated and dynamic which means it requires instant reactionwithin the various layouts, then a LAN-based solution is to be preferred.In this case (for example) the state of a popup menu can instantly changesome variables in the same layout or the click on a button forces aprintout... To accomplish this with any scripts will slow you down - theseare native functions of well-known database programs.On the other hand - if the ping-pong game of a web-based solution isenough, than I would prefer YOUR idea, because it is cheaper, probablyfaster, and more flexible. And more innovative, of course. Additionalargument for WebCat: if you make a proper interface, it spares a lot oftraining costs and time, because everyone can handle a web-browser!You have to make a workflow-model to determine which kind of solution fitsthe needs of the client.>We are estimating a total of about 25 queries a minute, inclusive of all>users.That means one query has 2.4 seconds available, minus serving time. I wouldestimate 1 to 1.5 seconds for the average query itself, on a fast server.So far I have seen WebCat can handle that if the programmer knows thecircumstances. We have now from 0.23 to 0.75 seconds processing time for asingle 10-items (max=10) WebCat list out of 900 records with some coloredlines, on a Mac 9500 under WebTen. A G3 will improve that and - I believe -WebCat under WinNT has this speed either. I don't know what you are goingto do, but with a less fashionable interface I am sure you can do rathercomplicated queries during this time.If you have a dedicated server and make heavy use of [include] on a fastdisk (or an array) you will outperform some database with abig-mouth-designer ;-)Good wind for your WebCat solution!>The in-house net is 10baseT - our outside link would be a full T-1.Ok, you mentioned 15 users online via the web connection. Web has lowerimpact, so let us add 10 serious users to the 25 in-house users. Now wehave 35, which is in fact a considerable number for a LAN database. That istoo much for a low level program and a high-end application is tooexpensive and not perfectly fit for the web...Without guarantees - one or two fast servers and WebCat looks like a goodsolution.>I guess one of my questions would be, is it faster to have 25 users>searching against a multi-user FoxPro database or can a WebCat/server>solution be as fast?FoxPro is one of the programs which wanted to fight good old dBase and(excuse me) something like FileMaker. With 25 in-house clients it willreach the limit, from the view of perfomance.>Any database pros care to chime in?If you need a LAN-database with web-connection or even with some sort ofinterface for WebCat - I am a 4D developer, but we should discuss that viaprivate mail ;-)Peter__________________________________________Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.comOstry & Partner - Ostry Internet SolutionsAuhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austriafon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
At 13:36 Uhr 10.06.1998, Marty Schmid wrote:> >Is it right that the decision for in-house FoxPro is fixed?>>Just to recap, there are two possible scenarios:>>A: In-house agents use the FoxPro solution and I try to keep the in-house>FoxPro database synched up with the on-line WebCat database.> or>B: We scrap the FoxPro database and use ONLY a WebCat database/server>solution which would be accessed via browser for both in-house agents and>outside web surfers.That depends on the kind of work they want to do. If the application istrather complicated and dynamic which means it requires instant reactionwithin the various layouts, then a LAN-based solution is to be preferred.In this case (for example) the state of a popup menu can instantly changesome variables in the same layout or the click on a button forces aprintout... To accomplish this with any scripts will slow you down - theseare native functions of well-known database programs.On the other hand - if the ping-pong game of a web-based solution isenough, than I would prefer YOUR idea, because it is cheaper, probablyfaster, and more flexible. And more innovative, of course. Additionalargument for WebCat: if you make a proper interface, it spares a lot oftraining costs and time, because everyone can handle a web-browser!You have to make a workflow-model to determine which kind of solution fitsthe needs of the client.>We are estimating a total of about 25 queries a minute, inclusive of all>users.That means one query has 2.4 seconds available, minus serving time. I wouldestimate 1 to 1.5 seconds for the average query itself, on a fast server.So far I have seen WebCat can handle that if the programmer knows thecircumstances. We have now from 0.23 to 0.75 seconds processing time for asingle 10-items (max=10) WebCat list out of 900 records with some coloredlines, on a Mac 9500 under WebTen. A G3 will improve that and - I believe -WebCat under WinNT has this speed either. I don't know what you are goingto do, but with a less fashionable interface I am sure you can do rathercomplicated queries during this time.If you have a dedicated server and make heavy use of
[include] on a fastdisk (or an array) you will outperform some database with abig-mouth-designer ;-)Good wind for your WebCat solution!>The in-house net is 10baseT - our outside link would be a full T-1.Ok, you mentioned 15 users online via the web connection. Web has lowerimpact, so let us add 10 serious users to the 25 in-house users. Now wehave 35, which is in fact a considerable number for a LAN database. That istoo much for a low level program and a high-end application is tooexpensive and not perfectly fit for the web...Without guarantees - one or two fast servers and WebCat looks like a goodsolution.>I guess one of my questions would be, is it faster to have 25 users>searching against a multi-user FoxPro database or can a WebCat/server>solution be as fast?FoxPro is one of the programs which wanted to fight good old dBase and(excuse me) something like FileMaker. With 25 in-house clients it willreach the limit, from the view of perfomance.>Any database pros care to chime in?If you need a LAN-database with web-connection or even with some sort ofinterface for WebCat - I am a 4D developer, but we should discuss that viaprivate mail ;-)Peter__________________________________________Peter Ostry - po@ostry.com - www.ostry.comOstry & Partner - Ostry Internet SolutionsAuhofstrasse 29 A-1130 Vienna Austriafon ++43-1-8777454 fax ++43-1-8777454-21
Peter Ostry
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:
Re:Dumb Question about Docs (1997)
serial number (1998)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
Taxes shipcost (2003)
WebTen and WebCat (1997)
No Wanna Duppys (1998)
Multiple Hideif peramiters (2001)
Sort Order on a page search (1997)
YACBQ.....(Yet another checkbox question) (2000)
help with duplicate records posted (1998)
da webcat, da merchant, da auth (1998)
This message couldn't reach the list! (multi-column (1998)
F3 crashing server (1997)
[WebDNA] API - Delicious (2011)
Setting up WebCatalog with Retail Pro data (1996)
WC 2.0 frames feature (1997)
MacOS alias identification? (1998)
Simple way to create unique SKU (1997)
[WebDNA] passing a variable in an include - precedence (2017)
Email Formatting and Encryption (1998)