Unlock a world of possibilities! Login now and discover the exclusive benefits awaiting you.
Silly and quick question.
Theoretically a reload of data done with QV (client) 10 is really faster than done with QV 9.
Is this applicable for the server side?
Thanks
Giulio
I didn't really check for server side differences when we upgraded to v10, but I definitely noticed the difference in some loads on my own machine between the two versions when I was testing v9 vs. v10 functionality. I can't think of anything that would prevent the server from seeing similar gains.
We have seen over a 60% inmprovement in reload times. Our massive weekend update went from 13 hours down to about 5 hours after upgrading from QV 9 to QV 10.
JS
This isn't very scientific since I never wrote down our old load times and computed averages before and after the upgrade. But based on my memory alone, I think our two biggest loads each took between 2 and 3 hours in version 9. Each took around an hour last night in version 10. I honestly didn't realize until now that it was THAT much better, assuming I'm remembering the old load times correctly, and that nobody upgraded the server hardware.
I have seen great improvements when reading data from odbc datasources. Maybe it´s related with the separation of the odbc/oledb connection in a separated process called qvconnect. This has be done to allow QV x64 to connect to x32 odbc drivers.
QV 10 is much faster than QV 9 because it works based on concept of multithreading.
Thank you folks.
I definitively verified that the performance are much better on 10 than on 9.
I've been scared by an initial issue with QVS 10 server the first time a run my report, as the server hanged up.
Thanks
Giulio