Posted by haggisbasher on 12/25/06 14:55

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:26:10 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
wrote:

>haggisbasher@nerdshack.com wrote:
>
>> For the next few years (until present clients begin to pass away and
>> new clients are qualified better when adding them) there is no real
>> alternative to extracting all the records each Query.
>>
>> The extract Query I'm using is the simple -
>>
>> $TableName="clients";
>> $Query="SELECT * FROM $TableName order by blah-blah";
>> $Result=mysql_db_query ($DBName, $Query, $Link);
>> while ($Row=mysql_fetch_array ($Result))
>> {
>> display each client's data in one line across the screen
>> }
>>
>> I'm concerned that this may seem slow when handling the enlarged
>> number of records. Is there any way to speed this up?
>
>As you are displaying so much about each row and I hardly think you will
>generate a page which has all the 10000 entries shown at the same time, using
>LIMIT will speed it up a bit.
>
>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/limit-optimization.html
>
>
>> Is MySQL up to the task, or do I need to investigate another RDMS?
>
>A couple of years ago they made a big test on SQL servers, where each SQL
>server developer was allowed to send a team to configure the server for best
>result. At this point the MySQL4 wasn't more than at Alpha stage, but MySQL
>choose to use it and took second place after Oracle, as Oracle had more features.
>Google.com uses MySQL, so if they are happy with it, I guess your 10000 rows
>of data won't be a match for MySQL.
>
>
>> If we bought/rented a dedicated server, would that help more than a
>> new RDMS?
>
>Of course a dedicated server would increase the performance of the SQL server,
>no matter if you use MySQL or the damn slow MSSQL, but remember that if you
>have to run the queries over TCP, you will find slowdowns, specially if the
>web server and sql server are located far away (long route for the packages to
>be transported).

Thank you, your answer seems quite reassuring. I foresee my customer
query screen having to offer alphabetic options and my query using
BETWEEN - although I suppose that, at some time, I was going to have
to go that route anyway..

[Back to original message]