I spent the weekend going over various scenarios with the Image File Reference field because I'm finding the response time when images are over 200k is just terrible. Here's what I've found and I'm wondering if others have found the same.
1. Just using this type of field slows down response in a form
2. A5V8 response is much better than A5V9
3. Using this type of field in a browse is much slower than on it's own
4. Using this type of field causes erratic cursor behaviour - choppy response time
5. The OS makes a difference - Vista is much slower than XP with this type of field.
I'm using Vista SP1 with a 3Gz PC, 4Gb ram and a fast graphics card with 512Mb ram. I tested XP using MS Virtual PC on the same PC and the same database ran much better - overall faster than Vista, and faster under V8 than V9.
The only way I could get decent response time displaying 2Mb images on a form was to have a character field into which I insert the full path and name of the image and then have code load that image into a bitmap control.
I've tried using the Image File Reference field, the Image File Reference control... together... separately... and it's just horribly slow with the worst response being under Vista with V9. To move from record to record about 2-3 seconds. Add a 6Mb image file and you're up to 5-6 seconds. Under V9 after adding a 6Mb image file moving to any record takes 4-6 seconds. Under V8 moving to a record with a large image file took longer, but moving to a record with a smaller image file took less time.
David
1. Just using this type of field slows down response in a form
2. A5V8 response is much better than A5V9
3. Using this type of field in a browse is much slower than on it's own
4. Using this type of field causes erratic cursor behaviour - choppy response time
5. The OS makes a difference - Vista is much slower than XP with this type of field.
I'm using Vista SP1 with a 3Gz PC, 4Gb ram and a fast graphics card with 512Mb ram. I tested XP using MS Virtual PC on the same PC and the same database ran much better - overall faster than Vista, and faster under V8 than V9.
The only way I could get decent response time displaying 2Mb images on a form was to have a character field into which I insert the full path and name of the image and then have code load that image into a bitmap control.
I've tried using the Image File Reference field, the Image File Reference control... together... separately... and it's just horribly slow with the worst response being under Vista with V9. To move from record to record about 2-3 seconds. Add a 6Mb image file and you're up to 5-6 seconds. Under V9 after adding a 6Mb image file moving to any record takes 4-6 seconds. Under V8 moving to a record with a large image file took longer, but moving to a record with a smaller image file took less time.
David