Re: Here we go again...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66649
interpreted = N
texte = WebDNA is using flat file for storing data. It is not a relationship =database like MySQL. Also once your flat file grow beyond roughly 2 GB =(check with Network Admin to verify the size), you can't run data very =well. The go-around solution is to break down WebDNA database into =smaller chunks for faster performance. You really need Relationship =Database for scaleable application.-----Original Message-----From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf OfKenneth GromeSent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:55 AMTo: WebDNA TalkSubject: Re: Here we go again...On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:05:55 -0500, Terry Wilson wrote:> ... you never know when you'll be required to start doing something a=20> certain way; or at some point, an old solution just isn't good enough=20> or fast enough any longer ...Example:A client of mine preferred webdna but his searches were too slow, so he =hired me to debug and fix them. His code was fine but the database =files were not configured to optimize webdna's performance, so I could =only recommend two options: (1) reconfigure the databases (not a good =solution because updated data files came from another source frequently) =.... or (2) switch to MySQL and give that a try ... =20I really didn't know if MySQL could handle the task any faster than =webdna and I told him this, but he went for it anyways. He said webdna =hosting cost too much anyways, and since he wasn't committed to using it =on his server anyways (although he enjoyed personally mocking up web =sites because it's east for a non-programmer to use) he decided to go =with PHP and MySQL.The moment we switched his search times dropped from about 10 seconds to =less than two seconds. I think the reason is two-fold: (1) he had =database files that were too large for webdna to RAM-cache efficiently, =and (2) we were doing nested searches, and webdna is pretty slow =sometimes when using nested searches, especially with large db files.The bottom line is that he "outgrew" webdna for use on his server, and =now he's happy again with a faster free solution. I think this type of =situation is going to become more and more common as webdna continues to =be less and less aggressively developed, supported and marketed.Sincerely,=20Kenneth Grome=20owner@kengrome.comkengrome@gmail.comwww.kengrome.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/-------------------------------------------------------------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:
WebDNA is using flat file for storing data. It is not a relationship =database like MySQL. Also once your flat file grow beyond roughly 2 GB =(check with Network Admin to verify the size), you can't run data very =well. The go-around solution is to break down WebDNA database into =smaller chunks for faster performance. You really need Relationship =Database for scaleable application.-----Original Message-----From: WebDNA Talk [mailto:WebDNA-Talk@talk.smithmicro.com]On Behalf OfKenneth GromeSent: Friday, March 31, 2006 4:55 AMTo: WebDNA TalkSubject: Re: Here we go again...On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:05:55 -0500, Terry Wilson wrote:> ... you never know when you'll be required to start doing something a=20> certain way; or at some point, an old solution just isn't good enough=20> or fast enough any longer ...Example:A client of mine preferred webdna but his searches were too slow, so he =hired me to debug and fix them. His code was fine but the database =files were not configured to optimize webdna's performance, so I could =only recommend two options: (1) reconfigure the databases (not a good =solution because updated data files came from another source frequently) =.... or (2) switch to MySQL and give that a try ... =20I really didn't know if MySQL could handle the task any faster than =webdna and I told him this, but he went for it anyways. He said webdna =hosting cost too much anyways, and since he wasn't committed to using it =on his server anyways (although he enjoyed personally mocking up web =sites because it's east for a non-programmer to use) he decided to go =with PHP and MySQL.The moment we switched his search times dropped from about 10 seconds to =less than two seconds. I think the reason is two-fold: (1) he had =database files that were too large for webdna to RAM-cache efficiently, =and (2) we were doing nested searches, and webdna is pretty slow =sometimes when using nested searches, especially with large db files.The bottom line is that he "outgrew" webdna for use on his server, and =now he's happy again with a faster free solution. I think this type of =situation is going to become more and more common as webdna continues to =be less and less aggressively developed, supported and marketed.Sincerely,=20Kenneth Grome=20owner@kengrome.comkengrome@gmail.comwww.kengrome.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/-------------------------------------------------------------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/
"Bess Ho"
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:
searchable list archive (1997)
Format question WC Mac f3 (1997)
[WebDNA] FindString - source: multiple words (2019)
Spell Check (2000)
WebCatalog Mac and cgi-bin (WebSTAR 2.0) (1997)
Problems appending to database (1997)
emailer setup (1997)
WebCommerce: Folder organization ? (1997)
Another question (1997)
Word search (1997)
[WebDNA] TCPConnect Problem (2010)
WebCat2 several catalogs? (1997)
[accountNum] and [math] (1997)
process SSI (1998)
OT: Too many lines too add in one go (2003)
URGENT! Locked DB's (2001)
Max Record length (1997)
Add to a field (1998)
date pref (1999)
WC2.0 Memory Requirements (1997)