2.6 -v- 6

[Grimwaldi]

I did a simple test to show the speed difference between fox 2.6 (win & dos) & Vfp 6.

I did a simple "select * from table" on a large table and did it on all three platforms in random order a number of times. DOS averaged 0.11 secs, WIN was 0.22secs and Vfp 61.2seconds!

Is there a problem with Vfp or what?

 

[Grimwaldi]

Can anyone out there with 2.6 and vfp 6 try the same query on a large table at the command prompt and tell me the results?

I'm not saying that I won't be using VFP, because I will be. I would just like to know why the difference and any gotyahs so that I avoid any flak from the users when I start.

Thanks in advance

 

[TheRambler]

Hi,
I've run this is the code four times for each version:
SET TALK OFF
lnStart = seconds()
SELECT myField, count(*) ;
FROM myTable ;
GROUP BY 1 INTO CURSOR myCursor
? seconds() - lnStart

myTable has 998092 records and myCursor ends up with 12 records. I don't have an index on myField.
[tt]
FPD26 VFP7 VFP9
26.256 15.813 17.998
21.163 10.443 10.122
17.323 11.167 9.951
13.678 11.022 9.812[/tt]

Sorry, I don't have VFP6 to test. But I must agree with previous posters in that this may not be a valid comparison.

 

[alvechurchdata]

I avoid any flak from the users when I start.

One real bonus of VFP is that the user interface gives you a lot more scope to control the user's impression of speed. A classic example is that you only populate the first page of a pageframe as the form loads - the other pages get filled if and when the user goes to that page. The total loading time is much the same but it feels much faster because page 1 appears more quickly.

Geoff Franklin

http://www.alvechurchdata.co.uk

 

[Grimwaldi]

I have tried the example above and yes Vfp is faster! I was very suprised. I think the difference in speed is down to running the query from the command prompt rather than as a program.

Very strange.

Thanks everyone.