Tables vs. Standalone DBF & Efficiency

[MikeMV]

Hello,

We have a large number of small applications writen a long time ago that use standalone dbfs; since our main application is being updated and there is a need for large structure changes we are going to have to re-write some of these.

My question is whether it is generally more efficient to create a single database with multiple tables or individual dbfs?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Mike.

 

[DSummZZZ]

I agree with Mike. There are pros and cons. But of course, that depends on your design.
I don't think you'll see any difference in performance using a database rather than free tables to start with. Only when you do start to use database specific code like triggers.


-Dave Summers-

Even more Fox stuff at:

http://www.davesummers.net/foxprolinks.htm

 

[Mike Lewis]

Hi Mike,

It partly depends on where the DBC is located. You'll always want to keep your DBFs in a shared folder on a file server. But the DBC is essentially read-only (as far as users are concerned) and therefore doesn't have to be shared.

There is a definite performance gain in giving each user their local copy of the DBC. However, this makes maintenance that much more difficult.

But as the others have said, performance is only one of several issues. I suggest you look at:

http://www.ml-consult.co.uk/foxst-32.htm

This discusses the advantages of DBC vs free tables.

Mike

__________________________________
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)

My Visual FoxPro site: www.ml-consult.co.uk

 

[MikeMV]

Thanks a lot for your 3 replies.

 

[craigber]

There is no such thing as a "single database" in VFP. The DBC simply contains meta data about the tables. I always use a DBC as it adds lots of functionality including long field names, better validation, and referential integrity.

Craig Berntson
MCSD, Visual FoxPro MVP,

http://www.craigberntson.com

Author, CrysDev: A Developer's Guide to Integrating Crystal Reports"