Re: A suggestion for an in-memory database, following up on Richard’s experiment

[Tom Glod]

no reason why it wouldn't work... but keep 2 things in mind

if you use community edition, the number of HHTP Requests you can make to
the same domain at one time is exactly 1.

For a system like this, it could be better to save to an sql because
seperate TXT files would be a lot of IO calls.

If you are on Business License, its less of an issue....

 I'd be curious to see the performance of using LC Arrays as Database.




On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Jonathan Lynch via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> This is a different idea from the other thread, so I am starting a new
> thread.
>
> Imagine the following scenario:
>
> Each record is saved as a separate text file.
>
> LC loads up all the text files into a single massive global array.
>
> LC listens to a port for DB requests.
>
> When a DB request comes in, LC makes changes in the global array and
> retrieves data from the global array. It sends the results back almost
> instantly.
>
> LC sends the new version of the file over to Apache which is listening on
> a different port.
>
> Apache spawns a new thread for each concurrent request. Each thread simply
> takes the record and saves it to its file.
>
> In this way, LC operates as an in-memory database, which is supposed to be
> very fast, and Apache does the multithreading to back up each record in the
> background.
>
> Assuming a powerful server with lots of RAM, could this allow us to handle
> massive concurrency while using LC as the server?
>
> Apologies if these questions are getting tedious - they are relevant to my
> current project.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>