- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
Just a reference to you and your membership with the "Banging Latinas" site. Or do you prefer Señor? (Not that I think there is anything particularly wrong with that preference.)
Intellectual Adventure Using MS Access
- Thread starter Uncle Gizmo
- Start date
vba_php
Forum Troll
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,880
you mean this?
https://www.google.com/search?q=latinas (include "banging" on your own)
hopefully that's not inappropriate for you people. I love all you old guy comments to me. they're all the same, and of course they always mean nothing.
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 00:56
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,787
No señor Adam.
we meant this
Its not appropriate to post links to that site here but since you're a member and surprisingly havent been banned there yet, I'm sure you have it bookmarked.
- Local time
- Today, 05:56
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,473
Is that a misspelling?
Dreamweaver
Well-known member
- Local time
- Today, 05:56
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,467
Looks like I've found another like for my growing list 
Think I'll save it for a cold, wet and windy night Durrr It's england that is just about every night 
thanks @Uncle Gizmo
P.S. Just noticed he's using Http when it should be https which is more secure
Think I'll save it for a cold, wet and windy night Durrr It's england that is just about every night thanks @Uncle Gizmo
P.S. Just noticed he's using Http when it should be https which is more secure
Last edited:
vba_php
Forum Troll
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,880
i don't think i follow any of this, actually. I think you guys have lost me.
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 00:56
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,787
You're right or should that be your right?
- Local time
- Today, 05:56
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,473
I was thinking Banned = banged
moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 00:56
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,787
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
I have no particular evidence that we ever FOUND you so can't have lost you.
You know all those lost souls you keep on yammering about? We have no evidence to suggest that you aren't lost worse than we are.
I WILL give credit where credit is due, however. At least you aren't as bad as the H A R E K R I S H N A devotee we had during one of your bans. So we HAVE seen someone who was worse than you. Isn't it nice to know you aren't in first place on that scale, too?
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
Adam, I fully understand. Intellectual adventures and you just don't seem to get along.
vba_php
Forum Troll
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,880
:/
it's a different kind, old man. you don't follow it, thus it is pointless to show you
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
I'm dropping off this thread because it will go too far afield if I give the answer that is deserved here.
- Local time
- Today, 05:56
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,473
I don't think Adam is capable of interpreting what you have said Richard, so I thought I would help a bit and translate it for him...
Sentence to Interpret
>>>Adam, I fully understand. Intellectual adventures and you just don't seem to get along<<<
"Adam" - that bits your name Adam
"I fully understand" - that means Richard understands
Now I think you probably got the gist of those first two, this is the bit that might be too complicated for you...
Intellectual adventures implies something "intellectual" that means you would have to be able to think to be able to understand it. As is common of people that are trapped in an ideology, they don't do any thinking for themselves they just follow along with what other people tell them they should think.
And that brings me nicely to the last part of Richard comment
"and you just don't seem to get along" - Richard is implying that you don't have the capacity to think. I've already covered this, but I thought it was worth reiterating it...
- Local time
- Today, 05:56
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,473
Is that a picture of Adam?
Nice idea and write-up, but I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions.
Just some thoughts:
- Corruption is a major and unacceptable problem with Access databases of that size. That alone
- 250 million rows is not that much. I do have customers with that size databases. 3 minutes query time for a simple query against that volume would unacceptable.
- The price comparison in that text is for a cluster of enterprise edition SQL Servers on top-notch hardware. If you really need that sort of firepower, the "equivalent" would not be 25 Access databases but in the region of 2,500.
- Multi user concurrency and network load were not considered the least.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
Sonic, I think you miss the point.
If the database is used for queries only, no writing, then once it is clean it is HIGHLY unlikely to become corrupted. This kind of read-only usage is commonly found in either "data mining" or "decision management" systems. And those are incredibly common.
Multi-user concurrency and network load were not considered because the experiment was done to isolate DB Engine speed from other speed-killing factors. That is the nature of experiments. You isolate on one factor at a time, which is analogous to the mathematical process called "partial differentiation." You vary one thing at a time to see what effect it has, all other things being constant. So the action in the article is OK by my standards of experimentation.
You talk about those Enterprise Edition servers. Do you want to know the REAL difference between my Intel i7/2600 system and a server-class machine? Memory size, wider interleaving, and a faster disk bus. We both have 8-core (hardware multi-threaded) CPU components. We both have memories that are appropriate for the back-plane, and my system's back-plane was designed for gaming so it is pretty fast.
If you have a stand-alone machine, even as dinky as my little 16 Gbyte DELL XPS 8300, you can run multiple threads and the memory sub-system still takes data in 64-bit gulps at a 3.2-3.4 GHz rate. If I had as slow as a fiber-channel 2 Gbit interface instead of a SATA interface, I'd run even faster than I already do. And FC interfaces are available for faster than that if I wanted them.
I worked with U.S. Navy servers that were nothing more than fancy multi-core systems with big memory and a fast disk bus and a good network card. Inside the box? CPU was the same on my desktop as was in the server. Memory was the same. Memory interface was a little different because it allowed 4-way interleaving and supported a faster DMA (fiber) interface. But it still supported EISA buses.
Do you really know why the "server-class" machines are so fast? Because they have big memory, in the 192 - 256 GByte range. But it's the same memory as I use in my system, balanced against back-plane speed. So why is it that those other machines seem so fast?
Your job on one of those machines runs about the same speed as it would on my system - but those machines time-share via multi-threaded hardware AND they don't have to do as much paging or swapping. With big memory, you can keep multiple big jobs in memory at the same time. THAT is why the server class machines do so much. They don't swap.
But Windows is Windows. At startup, a Windows task does the same thing on my Win10 Home and a MS Server 2012. They load the memory management pointers with the disk addresses of segments in the .EXE file that contain the executable image and then they JUMP (GOTO) the first instruction, which triggers a cascade of page faults as the new image enters memory. Same difference either way.
In the final analysis, the article is saying that the folks looking at the performance of the "monster machines" are looking at aggregate performance, usually as a time-share system. If you are going to isolate on specific comparisons to see which ones are significant, you leave out those factors - as the article did - and concentrate on s/w speed - which the article did.
If the database is used for queries only, no writing, then once it is clean it is HIGHLY unlikely to become corrupted. This kind of read-only usage is commonly found in either "data mining" or "decision management" systems. And those are incredibly common.
Multi-user concurrency and network load were not considered because the experiment was done to isolate DB Engine speed from other speed-killing factors. That is the nature of experiments. You isolate on one factor at a time, which is analogous to the mathematical process called "partial differentiation." You vary one thing at a time to see what effect it has, all other things being constant. So the action in the article is OK by my standards of experimentation.
You talk about those Enterprise Edition servers. Do you want to know the REAL difference between my Intel i7/2600 system and a server-class machine? Memory size, wider interleaving, and a faster disk bus. We both have 8-core (hardware multi-threaded) CPU components. We both have memories that are appropriate for the back-plane, and my system's back-plane was designed for gaming so it is pretty fast.
If you have a stand-alone machine, even as dinky as my little 16 Gbyte DELL XPS 8300, you can run multiple threads and the memory sub-system still takes data in 64-bit gulps at a 3.2-3.4 GHz rate. If I had as slow as a fiber-channel 2 Gbit interface instead of a SATA interface, I'd run even faster than I already do. And FC interfaces are available for faster than that if I wanted them.
I worked with U.S. Navy servers that were nothing more than fancy multi-core systems with big memory and a fast disk bus and a good network card. Inside the box? CPU was the same on my desktop as was in the server. Memory was the same. Memory interface was a little different because it allowed 4-way interleaving and supported a faster DMA (fiber) interface. But it still supported EISA buses.
Do you really know why the "server-class" machines are so fast? Because they have big memory, in the 192 - 256 GByte range. But it's the same memory as I use in my system, balanced against back-plane speed. So why is it that those other machines seem so fast?
Your job on one of those machines runs about the same speed as it would on my system - but those machines time-share via multi-threaded hardware AND they don't have to do as much paging or swapping. With big memory, you can keep multiple big jobs in memory at the same time. THAT is why the server class machines do so much. They don't swap.
But Windows is Windows. At startup, a Windows task does the same thing on my Win10 Home and a MS Server 2012. They load the memory management pointers with the disk addresses of segments in the .EXE file that contain the executable image and then they JUMP (GOTO) the first instruction, which triggers a cascade of page faults as the new image enters memory. Same difference either way.
In the final analysis, the article is saying that the folks looking at the performance of the "monster machines" are looking at aggregate performance, usually as a time-share system. If you are going to isolate on specific comparisons to see which ones are significant, you leave out those factors - as the article did - and concentrate on s/w speed - which the article did.
Well, it seems I missed the point indeed. - Actually, I'm still having difficulties seeing it.
In a read-only, local scenario with no concurrency and limited data (I don't really buy into the idea of searching multiple files sequentially) the Jet/ACE-Engine performs extremely well and is not at all inferior to "enterprise" DBMS. - If that is/was the point of the argument, I fully agree. In this scenario Access and Jet/ACE are an excellent and very cost effective solution. Was there ever any dispute about that?
If this particular scenario is your focus of interest, you compete against Excel, not against a server cluster running an enterprise scale DBMS.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:56
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,331
I think then that you DID get the point. JET is as fast as any other DB solution, except that Microsoft didn't expand the potential address space for Access when they went to 64-bit for the other products. If you could build a true 64-bit Access-based database that had full 64-bit internal addressing then you would have something that would probably seriously compete with SQL Server - and THAT is probably why MS didn't take the next step. A multi-threaded JET would also be interesting, I think.
Compete against Excel? That's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Compete against Excel? That's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
- Local time
- Today, 00:56
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 47,320
There is more to a database than capacity and efficiency. Much as I love "Access", I don't use Jet/ACE unless I have to. I do agree that both engines are faster than SQL Server in their own environment (local, not linked tables so there is no network latency at play) but that doesn't make them suitable for a large user base.
