File access speed

[honoluludesktop]

In order copy a physical file to a ram file I opened the physical file and pushed each line into the ram file, then on subsequent accesses, used the ram file. While I didn't take my stop watch out, there seemed to be little if any, improvement in speed. Is the primary benefit to using a ram file, the safety of the physical file?

It seems that the 10,000 loop through the database is slower then the first. Why? Can I do anything about ir?

I also notice that when debugging, if I puts to display enough, my system hangs (stack overflow perhaps?), especially when I switch to another application.

[Dan Rathbun]

Seems to me these days that most HardDrives have an integrated read-write (RAM) buffer on-board, that is enabled by default. So I'd think you may not notice a difference unless you disable the drive's buffer.

[honoluludesktop]

Thanks, Dan, That make sense.

[Jim]

@honoluludesktop said:

I also notice that when debugging, if I puts to display enough, my system hangs (stack overflow perhaps?), especially when I switch to another application.

If you're generating a lot of debug lines, better to write them to a file instead of the Ruby Console.

[honoluludesktop]

In the old days that was easy "my_application my_parameters > temp.dat". OK, guess the way to do that is to code it as part of my_script.

[Jim]

You can do that also.

[honoluludesktop]

I can "my_application my_parameters > temp.dat"? How? Not with the command window?

[Jim]

Yes, using a command window:

Sketchup.exe > log.txt

If working in another directory, you need the full path to sketchup.exe:

"C:\Program Files\Google\Google SketchUp 8\Sketchup.exe" > log.txt

This works as long as the Ruby Console stays closed. When it is open, output will go there instead of the to the file.

[honoluludesktop]

All this time I labored under the belief that only old programs up to Win98 ran in the command window, and didn't ever try.