🚀 go-pugleaf

Greg

What I am saying is I do not have a DBMS. I use DBF tables located on my
server. The server is connect through a T1 line with ethernet. I use Local
SQL commands in my VDB apps to retreive data from the server with that type
of response. All that is needed is to define a database alias in the BDE
and map the server with directory in Explorer where the data resides on the
server. When the app starts, simply open the database alias and you have
access. No, do not abandan your indexs. SQL will use the indexs if they are
available and retrieve data faster, but they are not required. As for
relations, that is acomplished through the SQL select command or you can
build a QBE that has SQL in it for views. Yes, I think you would get better
preformance and some enhancments by using a DBMS, but this is much cheaper
(I work for a cheap company, but you couldn't tell it when you pay your
taxes). The biggest problem is, there has never been much documentation on
VDB and SQL. Most of what I have learned has been the hard way.

Joe

Greg Hill <ghill@n2.net> wrote in article <3460BF14.5C0E@n2.net>...
> Joe Yuzamas wrote:
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> > I changed from dBase DML to SQL about three months ago. If you plan to
> > update to version 7.0, I strongly suggest you start using it. To make a
> > long story short, we have four file servers on our LAN which is a part
of
> > the base WAN. Each of these servers are running Windows NT server as an
OS.
> > We do have MS SQL running on some of them, but I do not recommend it.
It
> > requires a administration to constantly monitor it. NT requires a user
> > license for each user, but I don't think it cost much for each license.
I
> > use what Borland refers to as Local SQL from my apps. This means there
is
> > NO DBMS (MS SQL, Ect.). The tables are DBF format. Basically they look
like
> > an extention of my local drive, but are shared by many. File I/O is
handled
> > by the BDE and works as described in these threads. One app I have
written
> > is a read only report generator. It uses a single table with about
600,000
> > records (and is growing at 10,000 records per month). Using SQL I can
> > generate a monthly report which consist of scanning these records and
doing
> > some heavy calculations in about 1.5 min. Another app has an input form
> > with some 30 fields to add or update and takes only milliseconds to
update.
> > The only problem I found was, SQL under 5.6 does not support MEMO
fields.
> > Oh, one thing we are running Ethernet LAN. Even though 5.6 only
supports a
> > subset of SQL 92, I would never return to DML. Once you get use to it
> > (there is little documentation), it is simple. Hope this will help.
> > 
> > Joe
> > Joe, I'm not sure that I understand what you are suggesting.  Are you 
> saying that I do not need to use a Database Server at all??
> 
> If that is what you are saying then I think I understand what you mean 
> but I wouldn't think that It could be that fast or the solution for the 
> kind of activity that I will be doing.  You are suggestion that I just 
> re code the app so that it uses the Local SQL command set and abandon 
> the indexes/relationships currently being used.  I'm not sure how easy 
> that would be or if it will cause me limitations in the power.
> 
> Yes I'm going to upgrade to 7.0.  Are you suggesting using Local SQL 
> because that is the syntax used for handling the data in 7.0??
> 
> Please confirm.
> 
> Thanks for you help, Greg
>