banner@einstein ( infotech) (06/19/91)
I am currently evaluating DBASE IV for Sun and have run into some
"interesting" problems. Hopefully some kind soul will have some
answers to these... If there is a "faq" file available for DBIV for Sun
users please point me to it... Anyway, here goes:
System : DBaseIv for Sun 4 (Sparc)
Sun Sparc SLC
SunOS 4.1.1
A test time trial shows that for a given program (basically indexing
deleting, packing, reindexing searching etc.) takes 45 sec if I use a
local SCSI drive attached to the workstation to store the database and
index files (DBase program files remain on a file server, licence daemon
also runs on a file server...). If I then copy the identical database and
index files to a network drive (on a fileserver) and run the test program
again the procedure takes 15 minutes (?!). This 15 minute timing seems to be
independent of the load on the fileserver.
Question: Is there a way to "tune" either our fileserver or DBIV to improve
performance to the same level as a local drive? Has anyone else
seen the same sort of performance numbers between local and
network drives?
[ The same procedure running on a 386SX/16 with a local copy of DBaseIV
for DOS takes approximately 7 minutes ... ]
Some interesting results occur when you try the following:
-set exclusive on
-use a database
[ doesn't have to be indexed, choose one of the sample
databases if you wish... ]
-do a "dir" at the dot prompt
-note the file size of the database you are using
-mark several records for deletion
-pack the database
-again do a "dir" at the dot prompt
The number of records will have decreased accordingly, but the
file size will remain the same.
-use a different database with a like structure
-append from your first database
-all records from the first database will appended _including_ the
ones that were marked for deletion...
Question: Has anyone replicated this behaviour with DBIV for Sun4 ?? Is there
a workaround other than using "copy structure" and DBase "copy"
to a temporary file?
[ A call to A-T customer support confirmed this as a problem...]
I would be interested to hear about anyone's experience with DBIV for Sun4.
Is there an anomomly list for the product available somewhere ?
I would like to know if I am totally offbase with these problems...
(and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am !! ;-)
Please post or reply via email to:
--
========================================================================
Ross Bannerman | Usenet: banner@semi.mitel.com
MITEL Corp. Kanata, Ont. | "It was like that when I got here..."
========================================================================alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz) (06/22/91)
In article <8331@einstein>, banner@einstein ( infotech) writes:
$
$ I am currently evaluating DBASE IV for Sun and have run into some
$ "interesting" problems. Hopefully some kind soul will have some...
$ Some interesting results occur when you try the following:
$
$ -set exclusive on
$ -use a database
$ [ doesn't have to be indexed, choose one of the sample
$ databases if you wish... ]
$ -do a "dir" at the dot prompt
$ -note the file size of the database you are using
$ -mark several records for deletion
$ -pack the database
$ -again do a "dir" at the dot prompt
$ The number of records will have decreased accordingly, but the
$ file size will remain the same.
Like other xBase products on multi-user systems, the size field of the dir
command does not seem to be accurate until the file is closed. Under dBaseIV
for VMS, this size field does not change after deleting records and packing.
Also, adding new records shows a size much greater than the real size once the
file is closed.
$ -use a different database with a like structure
$ -append from your first database
$ -all records from the first database will appended _including_ the
$ ones that were marked for deletion...
I could not duplicate this under VMS, for what that is worth. Sounds like a
pretty serious problem!
--
< Alan H. Mintz | alan@ahmcs.mq.com | ...!uunet!ahmcs!alan >tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts) (06/25/91)
In article <209@ahmcs.uucp> alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz) writes: >In article <8331@einstein>, banner@einstein ( infotech) writes: > >$ -use a different database with a like structure >$ -append from your first database >$ -all records from the first database will appended _including_ the >$ ones that were marked for deletion... > >I could not duplicate this under VMS, for what that is worth. Sounds like a >pretty serious problem! My apologies for the bandwidth if this seems too obvious, but APPEND FROM (as well as COPY TO and others) are affected by the SET DELETED value. To cite the doc (which, in theory, should be the same for DOS, VMS, UNIX, etc.): "Records marked for deletion _are_ appended and not marked for deletion in the active database if SET DELETED is OFF. If SET DELETED is ON, only records not marked for deletion are appended." Note also that you cound add a FOR .NOT. DELETED(<source alias>) clause to APPEND FROM to make this more explicit. Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.180717.12998@dbase.a-t.com>, tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts) writes: $ In article <209@ahmcs.uucp> alan@ahmcs.uucp (Alan Mintz) writes: $ >In article <8331@einstein>, banner@einstein ( infotech) writes: $ > $ >$ -use a different database with a like structure $ >$ -append from your first database $ >$ -all records from the first database will appended _including_ the $ >$ ones that were marked for deletion... $ > $ >I could not duplicate this under VMS, for what that is worth. Sounds like a $ >pretty serious problem! $ $ My apologies for the bandwidth if this seems too obvious, but APPEND FROM $ (as well as COPY TO and others) are affected by the SET DELETED value. $ To cite the doc (which, in theory, should be the same for DOS, VMS, UNIX, $ etc.): Ah, but his original post indicated that he had packed the original database after deleting the records, thus eliminating them. Perhaps the original poster can clarify. -- < Alan H. Mintz | alan@ahmcs.mq.com | ...!uunet!ahmcs!alan >
banner@einstein ( infotech) (06/26/91)
> $ >I could not duplicate this under VMS, for what that is worth. Sounds like a > $ >pretty serious problem! > $ > $ My apologies for the bandwidth if this seems too obvious, but APPEND FROM > $ (as well as COPY TO and others) are affected by the SET DELETED value. > $ To cite the doc (which, in theory, should be the same for DOS, VMS, UNIX, > $ etc.): > > Ah, but his original post indicated that he had packed the original database > after deleting the records, thus eliminating them. Perhaps the original > poster can clarify. > -- I have found that if I do set DELETED ON the append command does now appear to work okay (ie this is a work-around for the behaivor I explained). Still, the pack command does not exhibit the same behavior as on the DOS version... In my case, the programs I developed in DBASEIV for DOS, the SET DELETED value did not matter if I _always_ packed the database after marking records for deletion. A side note: I spent a good hour talking to A-T customer support yesterday about my concerns, and have had several detailed responses from A-Ters on the net. The purpose of my original post was to try and find a solution to the problems I was having with DBIV for Sun and to that end I appreciate all the feedback... I hope the tone of my first post was not misunderstood. -- ======================================================================== Ross Bannerman | Usenet: banner@semi.mitel.com MITEL Corp. Kanata, Ont. | "It was like that when I got here..." ========================================================================