FROM : I. Savant
DATE : Tue Jan 15 17:22:16 2008
> I appreciate your followup messages. I had tried a schema of similar
> complexity (granted, it was a larger data set) and had fairly
> unfavorable results under Tiger (re: memory usage and performance.)
> It sounds like it might be worth another look under Leopard.
With a statement like that, you've *got* to provide more detail. :-D
What was your schema? What was the size of the data set (approximate
number of each entity's instances, if you know it)? What did you find
to be slow/memory-intensive, specifically? How did you implement that
which you found to be slow/memory-intensive?
Inquiring minds want to know! I'm not saying "I don't believe it,
prove it!" ... merely curious. I too have come across a number of
inefficiencies but most of them had fairly simple work-arounds once
the problem area was identified.
--
I.S.
DATE : Tue Jan 15 17:22:16 2008
> I appreciate your followup messages. I had tried a schema of similar
> complexity (granted, it was a larger data set) and had fairly
> unfavorable results under Tiger (re: memory usage and performance.)
> It sounds like it might be worth another look under Leopard.
With a statement like that, you've *got* to provide more detail. :-D
What was your schema? What was the size of the data set (approximate
number of each entity's instances, if you know it)? What did you find
to be slow/memory-intensive, specifically? How did you implement that
which you found to be slow/memory-intensive?
Inquiring minds want to know! I'm not saying "I don't believe it,
prove it!" ... merely curious. I too have come across a number of
inefficiencies but most of them had fairly simple work-arounds once
the problem area was identified.
--
I.S.






Cocoa mail archive

