![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » DBISAM Technical Support » Support Forums » DBISAM General » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 8 of 8 total |
![]() |
Wed, Sep 7 2011 7:13 AM | Permanent Link |
Mathias Gerlach | Hi,
I'm using the lastest version of DBISAM and have a performance issue with large tables (15.000 records). I've two machines. Database is local on machine 1. The SELECT query of all records from machine 2 needs 5 seconds if no other machine is using the database. If another user is connected to the database the same query needs 25 seconds. I use file access to the tables (no DBISAM server). Both machines run under Windows 7 Prof. and are connected with 100MB. Is there anything I can do (accept switching to DBISAM Server)? Thank you Mathias Attachments: dbisam.png |
Wed, Sep 7 2011 7:21 AM | Permanent Link |
Mathias Gerlach | Mathias Gerlach wrote:
Hi, I'm using the lastest version of DBISAM and have a performance issue with large tables (15.000 records). I've two machines. Database is local on machine 1. The SELECT query of all records from machine 2 needs 5 seconds if no other machine is using the database. If another user is connected to the database the same query needs 25 seconds. I use file access to the tables (no DBISAM server). Both machines run under Windows 7 Prof. and are connected with 100MB. You can find an screenshot attached. The left peak shows the query when no other user is connected to the database and the right if another user has opened the table. Is there anything I can do (accept switching to DBISAM Server)? Thank you Mathias |
Wed, Sep 7 2011 7:42 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Mathias
If you search through these newsgroups you'll find that its a fairly common question. The nasty part is that the answer is there's nothing you can do since its down to Windows not DBISAM. Very roughly if only one person has a file open Windows will treat it differently than if two or more people are accessing the file. Effectively think of exclusive vs shared usage. All you can do is make the queries as efficient as possible. Roy Lambert [Team Elevate] ps 15k records isn't that big - one of mine is 198k |
Wed, Sep 7 2011 2:23 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Mathias,
<< Is there anything I can do (accept switching to DBISAM Server)? >> Unfortunately, no. As Roy indicated, if you search the support forums on "opportunistic locking", you'll get an idea of the problem: http://www.elevatesoft.com/forums?action=search&category=dbisam&keywords=opportunistic locking&searchbody=True The problem seems to keep getting worse with every new iteration of the SMB protocol, also (Windows Vista and 7 use the new SMB2 protocol). -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Fri, Sep 30 2011 1:53 PM | Permanent Link |
Serge Chelli | Hi Tim,
I have exactly the same problem with an aaplication using dbisam 3. Can you confirm me that the performence will be better if I use dbisam 4 ou elevateDB please ? Thanks Serge |
Mon, Oct 3 2011 9:51 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Serge,
<< I have exactly the same problem with an aaplication using dbisam 3. Can you confirm me that the performence will be better if I use dbisam 4 ou elevateDB please ? >> If you're referring to the issue of reduced performance on any second or subsequent connection to the database table(s) over a direct, shared-file connection, then the answer is no, DBISAM 4 or ElevateDB will not help in this respect. The performance issue is related to how the SMB (Server Message Block) protocol works under Windows. The single connection performance is actually "fake", in that it doesn't represent the actual network performance since much of the data is being cached locally on the accessing computer and not actually read/written over the network to the server. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Sat, Oct 22 2011 12:44 PM | Permanent Link |
Serge Chelli | Hi,
Can I have a better performance if I am using client/server version of dbisam3 insteed of peer to peer ? Serge "Tim Young [Elevate Software]" wrote: Serge, << I have exactly the same problem with an aaplication using dbisam 3. Can you confirm me that the performence will be better if I use dbisam 4 ou elevateDB please ? >> If you're referring to the issue of reduced performance on any second or subsequent connection to the database table(s) over a direct, shared-file connection, then the answer is no, DBISAM 4 or ElevateDB will not help in this respect. The performance issue is related to how the SMB (Server Message Block) protocol works under Windows. The single connection performance is actually "fake", in that it doesn't represent the actual network performance since much of the data is being cached locally on the accessing computer and not actually read/written over the network to the server. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Mon, Oct 31 2011 8:46 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Serge,
<< Can I have a better performance if I am using client/server version of dbisam3 insteed of peer to peer ? >> Yes, you will see better performance that way also. However, just be aware that DBISAM 3 is fairly old and there aren't any bug fixes available for it anymore. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 07:31 PM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |