You open 80 tables in less than a second !

Come to think of it, it is a 10mbit n/w and the servers are old, they will be way below 500mhz, one of them is actually being replaced soon, so I may monitor any performance increase on that particular server.

Come to think of it again, my tests are being carried out on a 166mhz server and it's awfully slow, could have something to do with the results !

Thanks
Kev
>>Hi
>>
>>I have a couple of stats, and I want to know if these times are normal/acceptable, I am opening some tables on a Server on our LAN:
>>
>>Opening 9 Foxpro for dos tables - 0.768s
>>Opening 11 VFP Tables - 1.508s
>>
>>Sound reasonable, or sound slow ?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Kev
>
>
>Hi,
>
>What about dead-slow ?
>We use a 4,000 line overheaded function to open tables (fed by an array with the tables needed), and 80 tables, including indexes, open in less than one sec. So your response it dead-slow.
>The being slower in VFP will be due to the DBC you use, because VFP would just be faster (to my experience), and will be because of some real 32 bit in there.
>
>Note that my response is achieved by some faster server (let's say > 500 Mhz) and a 100 Mbit network. Further, indexes are on another drive opposed to the dbf's. This differs too, but not that much for the one user.
>The opening of one table will need well over 100 KB, so the network will be the bottleneck (if your disks aren't). Now forget about the overhead because of the DBC (only a factor 2 ;) and improve the other stuff. BTW, the .7 sec for 9 Dos tables on a 10 Mbit network is still far too slow. Should be .2 or so (incl. indexes).