On 28 Set, 05:00, Ted <ted.kobaya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, excuse me. I had previously done a timing test between Clipper
> and xHarbour about a month ago and the result was xHarbour was about
> 20% slower (or so I thought). I tried to locate the tests, but it is
> either in the bit bucket or alzheimer's creeping in. So, I tried the
> timing test on a current project: 1 million records, each seeking into
> another dbf, then looping through a small 300 record dbf, then
> outputting 1+ million records with additional fields. Here are the
> unscientific results. Clipper using DBFCDX 41.67 minutes. xHarbour
> using DBFCDX 33.48 minutes, xHarbour DBFNTX 31.21 minutes. In this
> test, xHarbour was significantly FASTER. Seems suspicious the NTX was
> a little faster than CDX, but I'm not going to argue. I guess I
> should have rebooted before each run. I may do the test again when I
> have more time. Any comments on the times above? Are they consistent
> or inconsistent with anyone else's tests? By the way, the tests were
> on W2000, AMD 2.2GHz, SCSI 160 drive, Clipper 5.3b, and the latest
> xHarbour. Might be interesting to run these tests on my XP computer.
> I'll work on that.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Ted

Can post your prg who made this test?