fairhousing — Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:21:00 +0000

thx, the biggest file i've used so far has been 60 kb so i should be ok with flat file. the biggest i see my db going is 75 kb.

thx again

------------------
Thumbs up or down ratings of the best and worst ways to make $$$ on the net. CLICK 4 CASH! from Affiliate Programs and Ad Networks

Vincent Puglia — Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:39:00 +0000

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the info; unfortunately as far as AOL knows, ASP is Cleo's pet.

Vinny

------------------
GrassBlade: cut&paste javascript

cds — Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:28:00 +0000

fairhousing,

I have been helping a friend set up a shopping cart that uses a flatfile db that is right at 1MB in size (1,024,841 to be exact) and from the time you press the search button until you get a result takes about 20-25 seconds on a 56k connection. About 5500 lines in it. How fast if it were in a mySQL db, who knows but probably would be a little faster.

Dan

Peter J. Boettcher — Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:42:00 +0000

Vincent,

By DSN-less I meant that you woudln't have to install a System DSN on the server, but you would still need some form of server-side scripting, this is an example in ASP using an Access DB:

Set Conn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
Conn.ConnectionTimeout = 15
Conn.CommandTimeout = 30

Conn.Open "DBQ=" & Server.MapPath("yourdb.mdb")& ";Driver={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)};DriverId=25;MaxBufferSize=8192;Threads=20;"

Set SQL = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Command")
SQL.ActiveConnection = Conn
SQL.CommandText = "SQL Statement here" SQL.CommandType = 1

Set RSOpen = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Recordset")
RSOpen.Open SQL, , 0, 1

I guess if your host supports ASP they probably at least support Access databases and DSN's so maybe this isn't the best example.

Like I said before, there are some areas where a flatfile gets the job done, but it can always be done better with a relational database.

Regards,
Peter J. Boettcher

Vincent Puglia — Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:10:00 +0000

Hi Peter,

Yes, redundancy would be gone (ah if only life were so
However, by size I was thinking more of the Exes, Dlls, etc. Seems as though as the years go on, everything gets larger (and not necessarily better).

Re the following:
>Permisions are a little tricky but with DSN->less databases you can do alot even when >your host doesn't support it.

More info, some examples, please.

BTW: If interested, I have a client-side javascript text-based database script (Rolodex 3) at my site you might find interesting.

Vinny

------------------
GrassBlade: cut&paste javascript

Peter J. Boettcher — Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:48:00 +0000

Vincent,

I can't argue on the cost side since a flatfile is free. As far as size goes, you definately lost that argument. A small database will be smaller in flatfile form, but a larger database will be smaller in a relational database form since you don't have to save redundant data. For example, say you're saving A user's name, favorite color, and favorite car. In a flatfile every row will contain something like:

Joe Smith, Red, Ferrari

In a relational database it would contain:

Joe Smith, 1, 3

Since I would store colors and cars in seperate tables. Like I said a small database will be smaller in flatfile form, but think about 50,000 rows of data, the relational will be smaller.

Permisions are a little tricky but with DSN-less databases you can do alot even when your host doesn't support it.

I guess there are some areas where a flatfile gets the job done, I just have a hard time thinking that way anymore.

Regards,
Peter J. Boettcher

Vincent Puglia — Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:58:00 +0000

Hi Peter,

I agree with you that relational is a beautiful thing. (I was one of the original database reviewers for PC Magazine back in the days when PC Labs was called the Toy Shop.)
However, I can think of three off-the-cuff reasons why flatfiles may be more apt.
1)Cost
2)size restraints (file & server); and,
3)permission rights.
For example, I have a site on aol (or as someone else put it: Almost OnLine). I do not have the budget for an expensive rdbms. I would run out of my "free" space before even loading the dbms. And, I do not have rights to write to the server.
In other words: to a hungry man, even a crumb looks like cake.

Vinny

------------------
GrassBlade: cut&paste javascript

fairhousing — Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:49:00 +0000

cool, thx for the feedback folks!

------------------
Thumbs up or down ratings of the best and worst ways to make $$$ on the net. CLICK 4 CASH! from Affiliate Programs and Ad Networks

Peter J. Boettcher — Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:45:00 +0000

fairhousing,

If it's possible I would stay away from flatfile. Why start off less then perfect technology. After using relational databases for awhile now I couldn't imagine going back to one big table to hold everything. I guess if you're just experimenting with something then a flatfile is ok, but if you plan to use this data for anything I at least recommend using an Access database, and a SQL 7.0 or mySQL solution would be even better.

Regards,
Peter J. Boettcher

orlando_5 — Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:47:00 +0000

No. not 100k, but if you have something over 1 meg then that will slow down the server just a bit using a flat database.