Fastest Database To Store Data

[Andreas Schulz]

Hi,

I am developing a poll software on a PocketPC platform. What I'd like to
know is, what is the best possibility to temporarily store the data.
XML? The stored data are needed further along and should be synchronized
at a later point of time. Thanks for helping.

Andreas

 

[Peter Foot [MVP]]

What volumes of data are required to be stored? that will be a key issue in
what storage method is most appropriate.

XML is okay for small volumes of data but will give you performance issues
once you have a substantial number of records. Comma Separated Values (CSV)
can give you a more compact data file than XML but you have to write some
code to get the values in and out of a DataSet by reading the file
line-by-line and using String.Split() to separate on each occurrence of the
comma character.

For larger volumes of data you will need to look at a database engine,
either SqlServerCe or one of the growing number of alternatives.

Peter

--
Peter Foot
Windows Embedded MVP

In The Hand
http://www.inthehand.com
Handheld Interactive Reference Guides

 

[Jamie Macleod]

I just use comma seperated text files. My databases are quite simple though.

 

[Hank Tolbert]

One alternative might be SQLLite www.sqlite.org

 

[Boris Nienke]

One alternative might be SQLLite www.sqlite.org

will it run on PocketPC Platform? Has anybody already build .NET
wrappers?

Boris

 

[Andreas Schulz]

Hello Ginny Caughey,

thanks for your hint. The data come from a server wrapped in XML. That
means all content information about the poll are capsulated in XML
structure but no layout information. The form of data that should be
passed back to the server plays no role cause the server is configured
to work with almost every kind of database.
I think I will have a look at SQL CE. Any idea or example how it works
with the .NET CF and C# as programming language?

Thanks

 

[Martin Robins]

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that for a request as to which is the
fastest (not cheapest, fastest) database for the PPC environment, you
suggested SqlCe. Whilst this is a good database, speedc is something it
lacks.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Martin,

For the data volumes Andreas is anticipating, I doubt that an XML-based solution
or delimited text files would load quickly enough, and the Pocket Access
database would be underpowered. Of course Andreas will have to test on the
target equipment to determine what works best. I could also have suggested
Codebase, which I understand now has .Net wrappers. My experience with Codebase
has been that it is a good performer. And if you have a fast CE-based database
that you like, then of course your suggestions are welcome. I haven't tried them
all out personally.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Andreas,

There is some sample code using C# and SQL CE in the quickstarts.

 

[Andreas Schulz]

Thanks, I will have a look at it.

I think I will also try to use XML Files as a data store and check
performance.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Andreas,

Good idea. XML is very easy to use with C# if you are satisfied with the
performance.

 

[Martin Robins]

I am still eveluating other databases after being dissapointed with the
performance of SqlCe.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Martin,

Please let us know what you find out.

 

[Andreas Schulz]

Out of business reasons I decided against XML and use the pocket access
database together with the inTheHand ADOCE .NET Wrapper. The speed of
the access database is quite good. I inserted 10.000 records in a table
with four columns and it took about 7 minutes to insert and 2.3 seconds
to select all records.

 

[Guest]

AS [Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:24:27 +0200]:

The speed of
the access database is quite good. I inserted 10.000 records in a table
with four columns and it took about 7 minutes to insert and 2.3 seconds
to select all records.

That doesn't sound "quite good" at all to me, not compare to

http://40th.com/gt40/bench_gt40_arm.html

Insert 25,000 items (key + data, in order): 1.6 seconds (yup, seconds)
100,000 items in 6.4 seconds

Read rate? 333,000 per second (20+ million per minute).

 

[Andreas Schulz]

Please keep in mind that I use the .net compact framework. and therefore
i have no other possibility than taking an access database to reduce
costs. and as far as i could get it your gt40 does not support the .net
framework.

AS [Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:24:27 +0200]:

The speed of
the access database is quite good. I inserted 10.000 records in a table
with four columns and it took about 7 minutes to insert and 2.3 seconds
to select all records.

That doesn't sound "quite good" at all to me, not compare to

http://40th.com/gt40/bench_gt40_arm.html

Insert 25,000 items (key + data, in order): 1.6 seconds (yup, seconds)
100,000 items in 6.4 seconds

Read rate? 333,000 per second (20+ million per minute).

 

[Guest]

Andreas Schulz ([email protected])[Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:23:58 +0200]:

Please keep in mind that I use the .net compact framework. and therefore

One has to wonder how

could ever be considered "quite good". Is the idea in using CF/SDE
to see how slow you can make your programs? Each new year brings
a 2x CPU speed increase yet (some) software programs get 4x slower
(or in this case, 70x slower... 7000% slower, give or take a 1000%).

What's the point if your software is so slow no one wants to use it?
Don't think "I'll just wait for next year's CPU" because, haha, you'll
be running half as fast as you are now.

 

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

If you think the CF is a waste, the why are you trying to "advertise" your
product here? This is a CF developer newsgroup. We don't appreciate nor
care about your opinions.

--
Chris Tacke, eMVP
Advisory Board Member
www.OpenNETCF.org
---
Windows CE Product Manager
Applied Data Systems
www.applieddata.net

Andreas Schulz ([email protected])[Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:23:58 +0200]:

Please keep in mind that I use the .net compact framework. and therefore

One has to wonder how

could ever be considered "quite good". Is the idea in using CF/SDE
to see how slow you can make your programs? Each new year brings
a 2x CPU speed increase yet (some) software programs get 4x slower
(or in this case, 70x slower... 7000% slower, give or take a 1000%).

What's the point if your software is so slow no one wants to use it?
Don't think "I'll just wait for next year's CPU" because, haha, you'll
be running half as fast as you are now.

 

[Guest]

CT [Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:50:48 -0400]:

We don't appreciate nor
care about your opinions.

Haha. Go load a form... while I make some coffee. It's slow,
man, real slow. There's no getting around it. You may be used
to it, coming from eVB like you do, but experienced programmers
I don't think can deal with a form load that needs a flash (and
on a watchdog -- haha2) saying

Go get some coffee while I start up...

Anyway, I want to get the other guy to say why he think 7 minutes
to insert a few 1000 records is "quite good". I already know you
think it's okay (haha).

 

[Guest]

CT [Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:28:01 -0400]:

So because *you* haven't seen a CF app, they don't exist?

I said

and then

Just point me to your best, most useful CF program so I can run
it on my old, trusty iPAQ 3650 with 2002/2.14 (just reflashed).
I want to see what you got. If you can't, well, that's really
what I said in the first place.

And don't get so P/Invoked about everything, man, it's
not like it's got anything to do with you.