OK. There's a problem with just about all index systems but BTrieve and SQL
When you create an index it's obviously sorted on the key. But when you add
records they are not inserted into the index but added to the end.
Thus, after adding so many new records you have to rebuild the index to get
the performance out of it again.
See if it applies.
On Tuesday 18 June 2002 11:26, patrick grantham wrote:
> Oddly enough, these two stations used to be the "fastest" in terms of
> overall performance. Only recently have they been so slow they appear to
> be hung. They have been in use for nearly two years. Something has changed
> in the environment, I haven't put my finger on it yet.
>
> I wuld like nothing more for them to dump this app. However, it's a
> catholic church using a contact managemt type app that has unique features
> to catholicism.
>
> On Tuesday 18 June 2002 10:26, you wrote:
> > > I find in a 14 station site the two nt workstations' samba conenctions
> > > are very slow with one 16 bit program. This is not affecting the the
> > > w9x clients at all, just the one program on the two NT clients. The
> > > program affected is a contact management applicaition written for does
> > > then recompiled to windows (it's 16bit) with a few gui features added.
> > > The underlying engine was mostly unchanged. Any thoughts?
> >
> > Well, first I would blame the application for its speed. My bet is that
> > you have some kind of DBase/Btrieve file-based database of some kind
> > that the clients map to - which is much slower than the alternatives
> > these days.
> >
> > The second thing to remember is that 16bit Windows apps run under
> > WOWEXEC inside a single (or separate) NTVDM. That's right: win16 is
> > emulated under WinNT and newer. Suprised?
> >
> > It's vaguely similar to MacOS 9 running under MacOS/X, and even sort of
> > like Wine under Linux, kind of. Lots of 16bit<>32bit "thunking" going on
> > between the native environment and the emulated one. It's also not a
> > 100% perfect emulation (but it is pretty good), and you will
> > occasionally experience problems.
> >
> > Truthfully, I've seen better performance with DOSEMU under Linux than
> > COMMAND.COM running in a NTVDM under WinNT. Win2k is arguably better,
> > and WinXP supposedly even lets you play DOS 32bit extender games again
> > (DMA and sound works, etc).
> >
> > It's amazing how many Windows users don't know they're using emulation.
> >
> > - Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com>
--Steve
_____________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you, and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.5 and above. Using HTML promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:52:34 EDT