🚀 go-pugleaf

You have been given some good advice here. I'll try to add to it.

"Cenk" <cenk1536@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:44d8a854@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Hi,
>
> i have a code sample below,
>
> TADODataSet *CountQuery = new TADODataSet(this);
>  CountQuery->ConnectionString = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Integrated 
> Security=SSPI;Persist Security Info=False;Initial 
> Catalog=Raw;Data Source=CENK";
>  CountQuery->CommandTimeout = 0;

// Why aren't you using a TADOConnection and creating the 
TADODataset on it.  Is there any particular reason you need a new 
connection for the dataset?

>
>

// You have just created CountQuery.  There's no reason for this.

>  if  (CountQuery->Active)
>     CountQuery->Close ();
>
>
> CountQuery->CommandText = "select [bid],[fTime] from 
> ["+table+"] order by [fTime] ASC";

// "ASC" is the default,but ifyou're a stickler ...
// When you know you'regoing to be dealing with a lot of records 
...
CountQuery->CursorLocation = clUseServer;
CountQuery->CacheSize = 1000;
CountQuery->LockType = ltReadOnly;
CountQuery->CursorType = ctOpenForwardOnly;

> CountQuery->Open ();

// As VVV has said:
    VField * fBid = CountQuery->FieldByName ("bid");
    VField * fTime = CountQuery->FieldByName ("fTime");
// This avoids the overhead of looking up the field by name on 
each iteration of the loop.

// We're guessing the table may contain 1000000 rows.  So let's 
be generous.
    v_bid.reserve( 1500000 );
    v_time.reserve( 1500000 );
// Note that if there are 1500001 rows, the vectors will realloc 
to 3000000 elements.

>
>  while (!CountQuery->Eof) -------> table has 1000000 rows of 
> data inside but this loop takes appox. 45 minutes to complete!
>  {
>
>     // v_bid.push_back(CountQuery->FieldByName 
> ("bid")->AsFloat);
        v_bid.push_back( fBid->AsFloat );
>
>          // v_time.push_back(CountQuery->FieldByName 
> ("fTime")->AsDateTime);
        v_time.push_back( fTime->AsDateTime );
>
>           CountQuery->Next ();
>        }
>
> why is this too slow? any suggestions?

Yes, see above.

> thanks

You're welcome.

As someone else said, you'd need an index on fTime for the ORDER 
BY for decent performance.

ADO needs to be pretty finely tuned for good performance.  It 
might take some experimentation.

Good Luck,

- Arnie