Memory Issues in VB

[daniel aristidou]

I tend to find that msflexigrid vb6 version is rather difficult and slow to use.,,,,,,,,
Why not try using listbox?

[daniel aristidou]

I tend to find that msflexigrid vb6 version is rather difficult and slow to use.,,,,,,,,
Why not try using listbox?

Sorry meant to say mshflexgrid

[QVeen72]

Why not try using listbox?

What if he wants to display 20 columns...?

Regards
Veena

[daniel aristidou]

What if he wants to display 20 columns...?

See your point.....

General Question....Why is vb6 still being used for large databases when ..newer versions offer so much more.....freedo m and control?

New versions of vb have built in code converters to update your code from old coding versions to new coding versions.
So if its a case of converting it being a very long task...i wouldnt think it would take that long....also it will probably solve alot of problems that can be experience in older coding formats.
I suppose it might be time consuming to learn the new syntax though.

Daniel(~_~)

[Killer42]

That's a large part of my problem. No time to learn the new setup and syntax. In VB6, at least I "know my way around".

Of course, I'm using it pretty much as a hobby, so it's a fairly minor issue.

Also, I think that most things can be done in VB6, just as well as (if not better than) in later versions. MS tend to add on lots of bells and whistles that don't make a real difference. I'll bet the later versions execute slower.

[QVeen72]

General Question....Why is vb6 still being used for large databases when ..newer versions offer so much more.....freedo m and control?

as MS itself says, If you are starting a new project, start in VB.net, but upgrading the older one may not be a very good option..

New versions of vb have built in code converters to update your code from old coding versions to new coding versions.

Yeah, I once tried to convert our live Project.. with some 100 forms, it took 3 hours and throwed up at least 1000 errors. Printing a text on form has different approach all together(likewi se many are ther).. all that code was not converted...
And if an Older version is running quite OK, I would not want to take the pain of upgrading it.. Say if you have to update it in a LAN of 100 Client nodes..

It is better to start on Latest Version for new Projects..

Regards
Veena

[daniel aristidou]

I'll bet the later versions execute slower.

It obviously depends on what you want to do....... but i would take that bet..
Also

MS tend to add on lots of bells and whistles that don't make a real difference.

I find that alot of the new "Bells and Whistles" reduce alot of work/code needed to be written, therefore i would have thought that this would reduce execute time due to less code needed to do a task.

Daniel(~_~)

[QVeen72]

I find that alot of the new "Bells and Whistles" reduce alot of work/code needed to be written, therefore i would have thought that this would reduce execute time due to less code needed to do a task.
Daniel(~_~)

Not always the code is reduced..
I tried this..
[code=vb6]
Me.Cls
Me.Print "Code In Vb6"
Me.Print "Just 3 Lines of Code"
[/code]

I tried this in vb.net and this is what I end with...:
[code=vbnet]
Dim MyCanvas As Graphics = Me.CreateGraphi cs()
Dim myFont As Font = New Font("CourierNe w", 12)
Dim LineHeight As Integer = myFont.Height
Dim LineNo As Integer
LineNo = 0
MyCanvas.DrawSt ring("Welcome To VB.Net Graphics", myFont, Brushes.AliceBl ue, 1, (LineNo * LineHeight))
LineNo += 1
MyCanvas.DrawSt ring("This Is a REAL TEDIOUS PROCESS ", myFont, Brushes.AliceBl ue, 1, (LineNo * LineHeight))
[/code]

Regards
Veena

[daniel aristidou]

Yes printing is alot more code, however you can do alot more.

[Killer42]

I find that alot of the new "Bells and Whistles" reduce alot of work/code needed to be written, therefore i would have thought that this would reduce execute time due to less code needed to do a task.

I have always found that in general, it works the other way. As code libraries and so on become more and more bloated with things to make life easier for the programmer, things tend to take longer to load and longer to execute.

In fact, finding that handy new function that saves you coding a complex piece of code everywhere can make things slightly slower - because you may perform exactly the same code as before, but you introduce an extra function call to do it. If you are performing the function enough millions of times, the difference can become significant.

Of course this general tendency won't apply in all situations. And it doesn't mean we should all be using VB1. But there are sometimes cases where an older and simpler tool may be better, because it's simpler.

[vikas000000a]

Just wondering, has there been any progress on this problem?

Hi Killer,

Sorry for the delay in reply. Actually I was on leave for seven days.

I have got the solution to my problem. The solution was to make my recordset as ForwardOnly. That way, it didn't bother to store the scanned records in memory and my problem was that only, excessive use of RAM.

Now, I am able to scan about 20-30 million records at once. Although, my requirement was upto 50-60 million, but I was somehow able to convince my client that this is the limit under the given circumstances.

Clarification
I would like to tell you and other fellows that I never dared to put 50-60 million records in an MSHFlexGrid. All I wanted was to put a summarized position in the grid which consists no more than 15 rows. It was something like this:

[HTML]Product Balance Number of entries
eRemit 41210152536.01 78459321
eATM 871475865.28 459863251
............ ............... .... ............... ....
............ ............... .... ............... ....
Maestro Card 4789652123.01 458763218[/HTML]


I think, I had made this quite clear in my very first post while asking the question. I don't know why this confusion arose.

Anyways, I am happy that my problem is solved now.
Thanks for all your support and suggestions.

Keep Programming

[Killer42]

I have got the solution to my problem. The solution was to make my recordset as ForwardOnly. That way, it didn't bother to store the scanned records in memory and my problem was that only, excessive use of RAM.

This will certainly be worth keeping in mind. I for one have always wondered what forward-only recordsets were good for. Thanks for the info.

...I think, I had made this quite clear in my very first post while asking the question. I don't know why this confusion arose.

That's easy. You made the fatal mistake of assuming we would read it. :D (And understand it.)

Seriously though, when dealing with people via text like this, it's very easy for misunderstandin gs to creep in. You just can't beat face-to-face communication.

Anyways, I am happy that my problem is solved now.

Excellent! Glad to hear it.


P.S. Man, I wish that was my balance...

[vikas000000a]

Hi Killer,

Agreed that I cann't beat face-to-face communication, but a careful reading of my question will easily reveal you what my intentions were. Its not that complex as it is being projected.

P.S. Man, I wish that was my balance...

But I certainly do not wish that it was you balance. Because it is a debit balance meaning that my bank has lent that much amount to people and is required to recover that. Still, if you want that to be your balance, I cann't help it. My bank's job will get easier.

Never mind, jokes apart.

[Killer42]

Agreed that I cann't beat face-to-face communication, but a careful reading of my question will easily reveal you what my intentions were. Its not that complex as it is being projected.

Oops!

But I certainly do not wish that it was you balance. Because it is a debit balance ...

Oops!

:)