Prev: String decoding
Next: A replacement for about-to-be-closed NGs
From: MM on 26 May 2010 14:43
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:51:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taustinca(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>If the problem has gone away, why bring it up again?

Er, to inform others?

MM
From: MM on 27 May 2010 04:19
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:30:40 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net>
wrote:

>Also the increase in available physical RAM always helps to improve
>performance.

I have now repeated my tests with ADO, this time on the 1gb RAM PC but
with 98SE loaded. The findings are surprising. (Timings in seconds for
same Access 97 mdb (local copy) and same query.)

1gb PC (98SE) 512mb PC (98SE)
pass 1 36 22
pass 2 37 22

1gb PC (W2K)
pass 1 15
pass 2 12

MM
From: ralph on 27 May 2010 09:50
On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:19:19 +0100, MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:30:40 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Also the increase in available physical RAM always helps to improve
>>performance.
>
>I have now repeated my tests with ADO, this time on the 1gb RAM PC but
>with 98SE loaded. The findings are surprising. (Timings in seconds for
>same Access 97 mdb (local copy) and same query.)
>
>1gb PC (98SE) 512mb PC (98SE)
>pass 1 36 22
>pass 2 37 22
>

LOL

Not since the ancient days of expanded/extended memory managers and
mixed memory modules can I remember a case where increased RAM
degraded performance. (You can reach a point of diminishing returns,
but *backwards*??? <g>)

Enjoy the adventure.

-ralph
From: DanS on 27 May 2010 11:24
MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:atqqv5pjgfk60v9q4f1d6nme2rb80l117r(a)4ax.com:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:51:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy <taustinca(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If the problem has gone away, why bring it up again?
>
> Er, to inform others?
>
> MM

You never did (,or I just didn't see it,) post your timings of

ADO on Win2K vs. DAO on Win2K for the same mdb/query.

For a proper scientific experiment, there can only be one
variable and all other things must be constant.

From: MM on 27 May 2010 11:24
On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:50:28 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:19:19 +0100, MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:30:40 -0500, ralph <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Also the increase in available physical RAM always helps to improve
>>>performance.
>>
>>I have now repeated my tests with ADO, this time on the 1gb RAM PC but
>>with 98SE loaded. The findings are surprising. (Timings in seconds for
>>same Access 97 mdb (local copy) and same query.)
>>
>>1gb PC (98SE) 512mb PC (98SE)
>>pass 1 36 22
>>pass 2 37 22
>>
>
>LOL
>
>Not since the ancient days of expanded/extended memory managers and
>mixed memory modules can I remember a case where increased RAM
>degraded performance. (You can reach a point of diminishing returns,
>but *backwards*??? <g>)
>
>Enjoy the adventure.
>
>-ralph

Don't forget that Windows 98 doesn't 'like' 1gb of RAM! In fact, you
HAVE to tweak system.ini else it won't boot. Maybe there are other
'things' happening behind the scenes that cause the extra memory to be
ignored or other weird stuff.

Mind you, I haven't given up on, f'rinstance, SQLite with its FTS3
indexing scheme to replace Access altogether.

MM
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: String decoding
Next: A replacement for about-to-be-closed NGs