REPOST: Re: Forms application tuning questions

Hi

I think that 128mb is well enough for Forms. I think the problems you have is due to the network speed. There is many bad programming practices that have no impact in a local network but in a more slow connection may inviabilize the application. One example: using the when-new-record-instance to query the database - such code must be put in the post-query trigger, because it triggers only once per row.

Other thing that helps in slow machines is using no bevel (that decoration around items), specially in multi-record blocks.

Luis Cabral

sldcrew2k_at_yahoo.com (steve deno) wrote in message news:<8e6b14d8.0201240854.60353348_at_posting.google.com>...
> I have a forms application (Version 6.0.8.12.1 ) with 10 blocks, 7
> canvases, and a good amount of triggers. The application accesses an
> 8.1.7 database on Solaris 8. It's sort of a data maintenance for that
> allows people to create custom queries using a control block, look at
> data, edit it and create new records. The forms performance is ok on
> my machine but when I move the exacutable to two other machines I get
> the following problems: drawing of objects gets really wierd (numbers
> show up in the space where the down arrow of a drop down list should
> be), scrolling is painfully slow (you hit the down scroll arrow on a
> block of records and a minute later the scroll is complete... etc.
> The machines that the application is deployed on have 128 mb RAM (as
> apposed to my machine which has 512MB) and one machine is accessing
> via dsl from another state.
>
> My questions are:
> 1. Is 128 MB RAM usually sufficient for a large forms application?
> 2. Do you know of any guides for tuning forms apps? (aside from simply
> indexing proper columns?
> 3. Would putting this application on forms server and accessing it via
> the web "lighten it up" on the client?
> 4. Is forms generally a memory hog?
> 5. Any Ideas would really help

• WAS CANCELLED BY =======: From: luiscabral99_at_ig.com.br (Luis Cabral) Control: cancel <c9ff1799.0201251049.975cef0_at_posting.google.com> Subject: cmsg cancel <c9ff1799.0201251049.975cef0_at_posting.google.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:01:49 GMT Message-ID: <cancel.c9ff1799.0201251049.975cef0_at_posting.google.com> X-No-Archive: yes Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,comp.databases.oracle.tools NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88 Lines: 1 Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.stealth.net!msrtrans1!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp04!u&n&a&c&anceller Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40718329

This message was cancelled from within The Unacanceller's glorious new software, Lotus 1-2-3 For Rogue Cancellers. Received on Fri Jan 25 2002 - 19:49:19 CET