J.Pluta
Hi Herman! Yup, good old BPCS days. I recognized the name, that\'s why I wanted to make sure I commented . SQL continues to get better, but it\'s just common sense that a single record operation, be it READ, WRITE or UPDATE, is going to be faster using a direct access than it is using an SQL statement. With SQL, there is some amount of metadata acecss required, and onlyo after that can it then do the actual I/O, at which point it is finally doing what native I/O does right away. I haven\'t run my benchmarks for a couple of years, but what i found in general was that SQL started to win out over native I/O as you did more and more operations at once. For example, reading a hundred records at once in SQL is typically faster than reading those same 100 records in native I/O, because you don\'t have the overhead of going back and forth between the database layer and the high-level language. Anyway, in general there was a point where SQL got faster. With reads, it was typically somewhere around 10 records, while with writes and updatesd it was closer to 100 records. I didn\'t do any testing on opens and closes; in my experience, though, as long as you have the correct indexes created in SQL the opens are pretty much equivalent. Joe
Please login to make comments.
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
   MC-STORE.COM