Realbasic 2008 and MS SQL
allan....@gmail.com
application. The database to be used is MS SQL. One of the
shorlisted proposals was for the client app to be in Realbasic.
We do not have hands-on experience in implementing RB so I looked
around. I found a posting in the Real Software forums which stated
that RB takes twice as long as VB6 in data retrieval drom a database
of 200,000 records! The posting was dated Dec 2006. Had this been
addressed? Had it improved in the 2008 version?
My issue here is that our projected database size in number of records
by the end of 2009 is 500,000.
Thank you.
Jean-Yves
<980e33d5-f243-40f2...@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
allan....@gmail.com wrote:
well the time to retrieve the datas depends mainly on the sql engine,
not the client !
rb has his own sql system, which is not very fast I confirm.
but if you connect as a client to a remote database, it will take
approximately the same time from any client...
if you want very fast database, take a look at valentina
http://valentina-db.com/
they can use almost any client and is really faster than any other.
regards,
--
Jean-Yves.
Raoul Watson
Stay with VB... Tell your customer that if they insist on RB that they
must sign a piece of paper to not make you reponsible for the speed of
the db retrievals..
Jean-Yves
Raoul Watson <Wat...@IntelligenCIA.com> wrote:
the problem with VB is that it has been abandonned by microsoft
no more support, no more updates
so you must leave VB
microsoft "recommend" to switch to C or .net ... total rewrite of the app
RB has an utility to import VB programs with few modifications...
choose as you want !
--
Jean-Yves.
allan....@gmail.com
> In article <d3xNl.315$5F2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> Raoul Watson <Wats...@IntelligenCIA.com> wrote:
Raoul & Jean-Yves,
Thank you for your inputs. There is also another shortlisted proposal
from another company which will develop the client application in
VB.NET. Personally, I was looking for other avenues other than
the .Net technology. That was why I am hesitant to recommend the
VB.NET solution.
Recommending RB with the Real SQL Server is not an option because my
client is "sold" to MS SQL for their own reasons. If i had a hand on
this, I will recommend scrapping the MS SQL for Valentina or even
MySQL.
I am utterly disappointed with what I have been reading about RB's
performance with regards database apps. I have looked at the
language, and as a former developer who delved in Xbase, I love it.
But I have to look at this from my client's perspective. With their
volume, speed of execution is the primary criterion.
Thanks again.
Jean-Yves
<e4dfb7fd-af13-4d2b...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
allan....@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you for your inputs. There is also another shortlisted proposal
> from another company which will develop the client application in
> VB.NET. Personally, I was looking for other avenues other than
> the .Net technology. That was why I am hesitant to recommend the
> VB.NET solution.
>
> Recommending RB with the Real SQL Server is not an option because my
> client is "sold" to MS SQL for their own reasons. If i had a hand on
> this, I will recommend scrapping the MS SQL for Valentina or even
> MySQL.
>
> I am utterly disappointed with what I have been reading about RB's
> performance with regards database apps. I have looked at the
> language, and as a former developer who delved in Xbase, I love it.
> But I have to look at this from my client's perspective. With their
> volume, speed of execution is the primary criterion.
>
> Thanks again.
I'm also not confident with the .net system ...as with many of microsoft
products in fact...
but, as I said earlier, the performances of the database is the
performances of the sql engine !
so
if you can link rb to your ms sql engine (with odbc or something ?) it
would be fine for you
only the user interface to translate from vb to rb not too difficult
the performances will be the same !
I aggree that rb sql is not the best. but they putted out a version last
week that they claimed to be far better ? 2009.1
let's see.
in my mind, valentina is the best so far, even local or network.
the api is better than rb
in fact rb should buy valentina and move it into rb...
--
Jean-Yves.
Steve Garman
> I am utterly disappointed with what I have been reading about RB's
> performance with regards database apps. I have looked at the
> language, and as a former developer who delved in Xbase, I love it.
> But I have to look at this from my client's perspective. With their
> volume, speed of execution is the primary criterion.
I love RB. Anything I write for my own use or my own amusement is almost
always done in REALbasic.
However, if I had to use MS SQL for a client, I wouldn't consider
anything else but .Net
Personally, I'd use C# but I have no reason to believe that VB2008 would
be any worse.
--
Steve
allan....@gmail.com
Steve Garman
I should make it clear that my advice is based on the assumption that
you really are stuck with using MS SQL
It's also based on only one test for one client, quite some time ago so YMMV
Given a choice, I'd avoid MS SQL also.
--
Steve
Lynn
Thanks Jean-Yves for this great recommendation! :-)
Valentina DB is a columnar database which has years of optimizations
for speed. In many cases, a complex SQL query can run hundreds or
thousands of times faster - it seems like an absurd claim, yes, but
when you see hours turn to minutes - that's what it gets.
Regarding VB - what VB does not have going for it is cross-platform.
If you need cross-platform, ie Windows, Mac OS X and Linux from the
same code base, you have few options: java (sort of), the framework
approach (like wxWidgets or QT) or a RAD tool like REALbasic or
Runtime Revolution (http://www.mirye.net). If you can do without
Linux, there is even Adobe Director.
I cannot say if RB is the best choice of any of these - but I dont
have to, because Valentina works with all major development tools. We
have local and client solutions that work with .net AND com (so VB 6
is even okay), REALbasic, Revolution, Director, C++, Cocoa (on the
Mac) - we even just put out a client for the iPhone.
We also just shipped Valentina Reports, which integrates with
Valentina DB - BOTH for local database solutions and for server
solutions. Your local app can generate reports from local databases,
your local app can generate reports from Valentina Server, or
Valentina Server can generate reports all on its own. Hands up for
anyone who have been able to get Crystal Reports to work with
REALbasic? ;-)
Because you can do so much with stored procedures, SQL and ODBC
connectivity, the best solution in many cases is to place as much
logic on the server, then build as lightweight a client as possible.
REALbasic is a great application builder, but its better when you
build lightweight applications because then you don't have to worry as
much about speed or issues popping up when REAL upgrades REALbasic.
Best regards,
Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software, Inc
http://www.valentina-db.com
Raoul Watson
..<snip>
>
> We also just shipped Valentina Reports, which integrates with
> Valentina DB - BOTH for local database solutions and for server
> solutions. Your local app can generate reports from local databases,
> your local app can generate reports from Valentina Server, or
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn Fredricks
> President
> Paradigma Software, Inc
> http://www.valentina-db.com
>
Now if you can keep the price within reach, that would be even a greater
accomplishment!
Your speed is not absurd. The fact that your renewal license can cost
over 50% of the original product price.. now that is absurd.