On 9/19/2024 11:16 AM, Roberts K wrote:
In my experience the amount of data is relatively small (even for thousands of records)
A bit of historical perspective is needed, particularly because our heads have not yet absorbed a fundamental change in technology.
Back in my working days, the IBM 3350's (hard drives) held somewhat over 300 mbytes each and our programs on the mainframe had about 10 mbytes core (the OS took about 6 mbytes from every program's virtual space.
So a large database might span three drives and only a tiny bit of it at a time could fit into core.
Now this Lenovo work station I am sitting at is ancient. The W541's were the last of the W series. Still, this little thing I v=can pick up and carry around has HUNDREDS of times as much capacity as those three 3350 hard drives and it has many gbytes of core, enough to load into core that entire database several times.
We (NOW) load entire databases into core because we can. We didn't before because we couldn't (and the ones that did work that way could only handle small databases)
Michael _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
