tim@phobos.sybase.com (Tim Wood) (04/17/89)
In article <1586@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: >In article <22863@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> steve@violet.berkeley.edu >(Steve Goldfield) writes: >>We are seriously considering moving a medium-sized >>database (about 10 tables, maximum 6,000 records) >>from McMax to Foxbase's networked version. [...] > > [ reply with sensible-sounding suggestions for configuration and a > caveat about multiuser TOPS ] > >A note about performance: for files that Foxbase opens read/write in shared >(not EXCLUSIVE) mode, expect a 50% slowdown. Obviously, it can't cache indices. >(This effect will be seen with any good program, not just FB+). Gee, this doesn't sound like the effect of a good program, it sounds like the effect of a limitation. Why is it not possible to cache indices? Because of FoxBase design? Or characteristics of the networked Mac environment? I don't dispute the factual content re FoxBase & TOPS, I just have a problem with generalizing the limitations of this program and/or environment to all (DBMS) software. FoxBase itself may have many fine features. But comp.databases readers should not be misled into thinking that other (Mac-compatible) packages must have this limitation. I feel that Alexis' enthusiastic endorsement of FoxBase is leading him to make erroneous statements about other DBMS software in general. >Alexis Rosen >alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet} -Tim Wood Sybase, Inc. / 6475 Christie St. / Emeryville, CA / 94608 415-596-3500 tim@sybase.com {pacbell,pyramid,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!tim Voluntary disclaimer: This message is solely my personal opinion. It is not a representation of Sybase, Inc. OK.
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/23/89)
In article <3908@sybase.sybase.com> tim@phobos.UUCP (Tim Wood) writes: >In article <1586@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: >>A note about performance: for files that Foxbase opens read/write in shared >>(not EXCLUSIVE) mode, expect a 50% slowdown. Obviously, it can't cache >>indices. (This effect will be seen with any good program, not just FB+). > >Gee, this doesn't sound like the effect of a good program, it sounds >like the effect of a limitation. Why is it not possible to cache >indices? Because of FoxBase design? Or characteristics of the networked >Mac environment? The implication was that any Mac program will do the same, and if it has decent caching you will see a similar slowdown. But this is sort of a red herring, see below... >I don't dispute the factual content re FoxBase & TOPS, I just have a >problem with generalizing the limitations of this program and/or >environment to all (DBMS) software. FoxBase itself may have many fine >features. But comp.databases readers should not be misled into thinking >that other (Mac-compatible) packages must have this limitation. I feel >that Alexis' enthusiastic endorsement of FoxBase is leading him to >make erroneous statements about other DBMS software in general. Tim is right. I didn't even notice that this stuff was winding up in comp.databases. It is certainly possible to have a DBMS cache indices in a multi-user environment. I was specifically addressing Macintoshes, and the programs that are currently available on the Mac. (Which is why my previous point was sort of silly- there are no other Mac databases with "decent" enough performance for you to see a performance hit in M-U mode.) Regardless, Fox is still the fastest thing out there, even in M-U mode. Now, if Sybase were to have a Mac product that really did things right, I'd be delighted (I am not asking for an A/UX character-based implementation of Sybase, BTW :-). I don't really expect that to happen, though, at least until System 7.0 is released, maybe later... --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet} alexis@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (last resort)