Questions: Table overheads & Addtable()?

LineCutter

Active Member
Licensed User
Designing a prefs system:
It would be easiest to use a table, with the load & save functions already in place, either as key pairs, or as a single row, with columns for each pref.

Questions:
  • What is the overhead (memory space/access time) of a table, compared to using an array?
  • Is that overhead different for, say, 2 columns by 10 rows compared to 10 columns with 1 data row?
  • Given that there is a table.dispose method, is there a runtime table.create so that the load/save routines could be used to deal with an array of prefs (if that is lower in persistent runtime overhead)?

Maybe someone's done this before - I can't see an obvious example in the fora or example files.
 

Erel

Administrator
Staff member
Licensed User
Arrays are more efficient than tables.
However you can't sort an array, filter it or show it in a table.
LoadCSV and SaveCSV will be quicker than implementing your own load / save mechanism.
I recommend you to use tables for databases with less than 50,000 records. Larger databases should be handled with the SQL library.
 

LineCutter

Active Member
Licensed User
Thanks, that was quick! :)

I take it that there is no runtime table creation - which would be handy here. That or the option to save the filtered part of a table directly, without copying to a temporary table.
 

Erel

Administrator
Staff member
Licensed User
Yes, you can't add a table at runtime and you can't save a filtered table directly.
 
Top