General information
Category:
Coding, syntax & commands
Interesting results.
Across a WAN, however, SKIP is horrible. In sone circumstances GO is much better, though slightly less flexible.
Thus SKIP 50 can take a minute on a WAN, whereas GO RecNo()+50 is almost instantaneous.
Downsides: GO does not ignore deleted records, and assumes no active index.
**--** Steve
>Hi Jimi,
>
>First, I think "skip 50" would be faster because it just moves the record pointer. It means nothing to foxpro no matter it's indexed or not.
>And it has to execute 50 commands on the second method.
>
>However, I've tested it with a 400000 records table. The result is:
>
>Method Time required
>1. SKIP 400000 1.532
>
>2. 15000 SKIP commands 0.050 (VFP can't accept 400000 lines in a program)
>
>3. Call 26 times of a 15000 1.522
> SKIP commands program
>
>4. For loop 1.652
>
>Next, I tested it again with a 400000 records table but only one field inside. The table used in the previous test is a very big file. And the result is:
>
>1. SKIP 400000 0.251
>2. Call 26 times 0.351
> of a program with
> 15000 skip commands
>3. For loop 0.411
>
>
>In conclusion, I think it somehow depends on the file size. When it moves the pointer in a big file it will be affected by the disk I/O, buffer, memory, OS...
>
>Any way, in fact, there's no different with record number below 10000 (in my PC).
>
>It's quite interesting. Looking forward for other folks' reply la.
>>
>hi all,
>>
>>Just wonder, for an indexed table:
>>
>>SKIP 50
>>
>>SKIP
>>SKIP
>>SKIP
>>...
>>SKIP (50 times)
>>
>>Does SKIP 50 a lot faster or just similar?
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only