[WD12] HReadSeekFirst faster as TableSeek?

Hello to you all,

I found out with ProfilerStart() and ProfilerEnd() that it is faster to find a record with HReadSeekFirst than to find the same value in a table with TableSeek. The difference is significant (1s 856 ms for TableSeek and 2 ms. for HReadSeekFirst). I didn't expect this. The table (and the file) consists of about 4500 records and I use the table with indirection.

Did anyone encountered this as well and is there a advice when to use TableSeek of HReadSeekFirst?

Maybe its the indirection???

Regards

issah

Hello Issah,

There is a difference in using indirection from another program or from a report. From another program executes quit fast (almose as fast as without indirection), but from the report it's very time-consuming.

Yes Louis.
I also see in my applications. TableSeek and also Seek integrated into column header is slower than HReadSeekXX and TableDisplay() from EDT_Box.
Also 1s is slow with only 4800 records, when I compare with my old application using DBFs and I was thinking that my old application is slow with search sometime. But your result is, hm.

Regards !

Hello Ici,

Thanks for your time. I'll use HReadSeekFirst.

Louis,
HReadSeekFirst is not absolute solution.
Column header integrated seek (based on your table keys) is much comfortable solution than you always make "edt_box" controls. You heft to decide where you will use your seek solution, but to make edt_boxes for all your keys into tables is not always good.
When you have 3,5 or maybe than keys and user wnat to seek on all of them.
Think about it. I prefer to use integrated solution except some situations.

Once again. Don't accept my reply like final solution and again think. :cheers:

Hello Ici,

Quote
Once again. Don't accept my reply like final solution and again think.

I will. Thanks again.