Conference ilbbak::ibi_focus

    Focus has now introduced (finally) read/write interfaces to both
    Rdb and RMS. That just happened within the last two weeks.
    
    ---- Michael Booth

    Hello Yee,
    	
    	Add this one to the advantages:
    
        Rdb is a DEC product well integrated in our architecture
    	FOCUS internal DB is not integrated at all.
    	What will appen if, and I believe ( or better I hope ) it
    	will appen, a DEC product with the same functionalities of
    	FOCUS for reporting is produced ?
    	Using Rdb we can easily migrate using FOCUS internal DB no.
    	
                                         
>    1. The converting your database into FOCUS for reporting.  
>   Isn't this done each time you want to report on external files?
 
    	FOCUS does not convert an Rdb table ( DB ) in its internal format.
    	It uses the Rdb query to retrieve records then it build the
        report.
        If the efficiency of Rdb increase the efficiency of reporting
        increase. ( and Rdb is increasing its performances quickly ).
    
    >    2. Limited to using FOCUS for reporting unless you extract info out of
    >   the database.
    
    	The next version of FOCUS ( 5.2 ) will allow update access to
    	Rdb DBs.
    
    					Best Regards Maurizio
    

    Well, for my money, there are issues regarding the use of Rdb and
    DBMS that are unrelated to FOCUS.
    
    For example, if you are designing a 20gb/20tps application, then
    I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend Rdb.
    
    On the other hand, if productivity, experience of staff, and ease
    of change/maintenance are among your number 1 priorities, then Rdb 
    would be my recommendation.

    Of course, there are other things which influence the decision,
    but you get what I'm driving at.
    
    Don't force-fit the application into the tool/database, and don't
    force-fit the tool/database into the application.  Take five minutes
    and look at what you have and what you need, and then make a rational
    decision.
    
    End-of-soapbox.
    
    
    Kevin

    I agree with 35.3 - don't be so quick to jump on the Rdb bandwagon if
    the shoe doesn't fit. BUT if the fit is a good one, then perhaps the
    primary advantage of using FOCUS/Rdb is POLITICS.  So long as you're a
    complete 100% FOCUS shop you will always be prone to 'how come you
    didn't use 1032?' or 'didn't you consider GENISYS', or 'so and so is
    using ORACLE on the west coast and they...'  However, with FOCUS and
    Rdb - you completely disarm the competition and set yourself up as
    (sic) a good, corporate citizen.  Sound cynical?  You bet, but after
    a couple of years of flak, I like being somewhat in league with
    the rest of the company.
    
    -rpr- (also on a soapbox)
     

    I'm looking into using Focus as a reporting front-end to Rdb.  Now
    that we're all using Rdb V3.0A, I'd like to ask this question again.
    
    1) How does "Rdb via Focus" performance compare with "Focus via
    Focus" in a reporting/query environment?  This is my main concern.
    
    2) Is AUTORDB as simplistic as it sounds in what it does to define
    an .MAS file?  It sounds as if it would be pretty simple to develop
    a replacement tool.  Am I dreaming?

    Thanks,
    
    Stew Stryker

    It's been a week now.  Could someone please answer my questions
    or point to the appropriate notes that would answer them?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Stew

>                               -< Is anyone out there? >-
>
>    It's been a week now.  Could someone please answer my questions
>    or point to the appropriate notes that would answer them?

    Make that two weeks.  I know there's someone out there, because I see
    new notes occasionally.  Should I call FOCUS for a biased answer,
    or could someone give me the straight scoop here?
    
    Stew 

    I saw, some weeks ago, a note ( I do not remember if in this conference
    or in the SHIRE::FOCUS one ) giving some figures on the performances
    of FOCUS - FOCUS vs. FOCUS-RDB.
    
    I am sorry but the performance of the network do not allow me to
    find you the number of this note ( I tried but after half an hours
    I gived up ). 
    
    It is raffly sayng that the FOCUS performance are similar on the
    two kinds of DB. Naturarly FOCUS perform better on its own DB but
    using RDB you do not lost TOO much.
    
    
    					Best regards Maurizio
    

    Maurizio,
    
    Thanks for trying SHIRE::.  I didn't know about that file, or I
    would have asked there.
    
    I'm sorry to hear that Rdb is actually slower than FOCUS.  I had
    high hopes for speeding up some of our procedures.
    
    Thanks for the response.
    
    Stew

    Maurizio,
    
    I found the note I think you were referring to.  The way I read
    it, Rdb performs much better if you set up the database definition
    properly for multi-segment (multiple relations) databases and let
    Rdb do the sorting rather than FOCUS.  I've asked some questions
    of the note's author, to see if my assumptions are right.
    
    I'm not at all sure that the comparison was 'apples to apples'.
    The author showed that TABLEF is much faster than TABLE for the
    Rdb database, but didn't show what the results would have been using
    TABLEF for the FOCUS database.
    
    I'm trying to get our version of Rdb (currently at V2.3) upgraded
    to V3.0A on our FOCUS VAX.  Then I can try my own comparisons.
    
    I'll definitely report the results here.
    
    Stew

    By the way, if I'm right, Rdb may be 10 times faster than FOCUS
    on medium-sized (35000 records) files.