lfredricks at proactive-intl.com
Sun Oct 31 12:36:05 EDT 2010
> I'm not sure at all that PostgreSQL would be slower than
> Oracle 11g, on both the OpenSuse 11 and OSX SL platforms and
> it would be interesting to know how Valentina performs for
> its own against both PostgreSQL and Oracle (would it be
> faster, as it's presented to to be on the
> http://www.valentina-db.com/ site ?).
A number of the testimonials on our site also include platform information,
but not all - just what customers give us.
I think your suggestion is very astute, and it also goes back to the value
proposition of Valentina. A few of our users are using really mighty $60K
boxes. Are your clients doing that? Or do they need high performance on more
Check out information from one user from about eight years ago (!) in
building a kiosk project, comparing Valentina with MS Access. Of course, you
probably wouldn't do this with Access today, but worth considering is that
this is with major hardware constraints, the overhead of Director, and that
since then most systems of Valentina are exponentially faster now and we've
added a huge number of other improvements (64 bit version, etc).
"I developed a kiosk project using Paradigma's Valentina database in
Macromedia Director (not exactly renowned as a speedy environment), but on a
P3/600 with 384 Mb RAM I imported and indexed 20 million records (about 1.2
Gb) inside two hours. I thought I'd do a benchmark with Access 2k - it
crashed after 11 hours of importing (not even indexing). Valentina did
5-term OR searches in under 0.1 sec on the entire dataset, Access (using
only 10% of the data) clocked in at about 13 sec. So Valentina was 1300
times faster!!! Does anyone else need convincing that Access is really not a
good way to go?"
Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server
More information about the Use-livecode