General information
Category:
Databases,Tables, Views, Indexing and SQL syntax
It is slow, just like moving sand with a briefcase is slow. I agree, now that I understand things better, that this is not the fault of XML but rather the fault of how I was trying to use it, but there is no arguing that taking 1.5 minutes to process 4800 records is slow. I never said it was poorly implemented in VFP. I don't know enough about it to make such a judgement.
My post was simply a result of frustration because in all the hype about XML, I never heard anyone say that it only works if you have a handful of records. I'm not saying no one ever said that; simply that I never heard it. So I went into this with the mistaken belief that XML was good for moving data between objects.
Anyway, I started a new post on how to better do this and got some wonderful answers, so I don't need to worry about XML anymore.
Michelle
>XML is not 'slow', and stating that it is 'poorly implemented' in VFP is being narrow minded.
>
>XML is simply not designed for the quick transfer of data of the proportion you are using. If you try to move a dumptruck-load of sand using your briefcase, it's going to take you a while. Your briefcase, however, is much better suited at carrying business papers than a dumptruck.
>
>XML by it's very nature is bloated, and parsing it using XMLDOM (as VFP does internally) requires loading every node into memory. There are faster ways of parsing XML (read: SAX), but you have to write special code to do it, and it's much more complex. Parsing smaller datasets, is for most purposes practically instantaneous.
>
>For a recordset of the size you're describing, you'd be better off passing a filename around and letting each process access the file directly...
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