Article View: borland.public.vdbase.data.sql
Article #1537Re: SQL or not (another angle)
From: Romain Strieff [TeamB]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:00
26 lines
1642 bytes
1642 bytes
In article <01bceebd$2565f600$a8fba126@LoprestA>, anthonylNOSPAM@lawdiary.com says... > What if I try a hybrid solution? The data I'm most concerned about sharing > is our customer file. We only have about 1500 records in our customer > table. I'm guessing I would see no appreciable difference between SQL > Server and DBF files for a file so small. ------ But yes, believe me. I even encountered an Oracle system where a 250 record table was scanned. it needed 1 second per record, that means >4 _minutes_, even if I think that _can't_ be normal. > On the other hand, I have 1.2 > million records in my transaction table, so it sounds like I want to stick > with a DBF for my transactions. But, I need relations between my > transaction table and my customer table and (maybe) vice-versa. > > How 'bout it? Will a hybrid solution like this give my the data sharing > and performance features (even with relations between the two methods)? > ------ You would have both the pros and cons.<G> -- Romain Strieff [TeamB] A few VdB utilities at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/RStrieff/
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MPG.ed2a56ab7522605989f66@forums.borland.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<01bcebc7$dd08ec20$a8fba126@LoprestA> <01bceebd$2565f600$a8fba126@LoprestA>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: ff5a1,ef8a746a45c3dbae X-Google-Attributes: gidff5a1,public From: Romain@Do.not.reply.via.e-mail (Romain Strieff [TeamB]) Subject: Re: SQL or not (another angle) Date: 1997/11/11 Message-ID: <MPG.ed2a56ab7522605989f66@forums.borland.com> X-Deja-AN: 288642608 References: <01bcebc7$dd08ec20$a8fba126@LoprestA> <01bceebd$2565f600$a8fba126@LoprestA> Organization: TeamB Reply-To: teamb@opto-pps.com Newsgroups: borland.public.vdbase.data.sql