MySQL speed vs FileMaker Server speed

[truelifeajf]

So I have a nice separation model all set up: UI on workstation and data on FM Server 12.

 

Connecting remotely to FM Server is "okay" speed - useable.

 

99% of my data are just fields and fields with auto-enters - so very few calculation fields.

 

So I could easily convert all tables to MySQL.

 

But how much faster will it be?

 

I can't find an answer (or even a discussion) about this anywhere online.

 

And then the big question for me is...

 

Why use FM12 server at all? Why not just have the UI file (on each workstation) connect directly to the MySQL data using it's own DSN? It would mean I can "define fields" all from the UI file, setting up auto-enters, etc. So it would feel like going back to a "combined" model (UI and data in the one file) but when I "define fields" I'm actually modifying the MySQL tables.

 

Surely going directly to the MySQL data would be faster than having the FM12 Server connect to the MySQL data?

 

But I don't want to do all of this if the speed is not any better - or worse - than how it is now.

[IdealData]

Why use FM12 server at all?

 

If you change the UI you would have to distribute it to all your users and each user would also need a DSN setting up.

 

Mac users would require a license to run the ODBC driver as there is not one included with OS X or FileMaker (see Actual Technologies)

 

Data caching to SQL sources is different and users may not see changes immediately as they do with FMS host. Using Refresh Window would be quite necessary.

 

Would you be able to run scheduled server side scripts?

 

You would lose the XML services, which can be used to invoke server side scripts.

[truelifeajf]

Yes, and that's fine for all users to pay for the ODBC driver and the Actual Technologies one is the one I use.

 

I could run server side scripts but I'm wanting to know the general performance of using this method. Faster, slower, the same?... when compared to

 

a) FM Server12

FM Server12 with a DSN to the MySQL database

[Wim Decorte]

I don't think you'll find any relevant performance data for your scenario - it just does not fit the model.  My gut feeling is that it will be slower because FM will still be responsible for translating all of its native calls in SQL over ODBC and back again.  If you want to go discard all of FMS' benefits then you should go all-in also not spend the money on the users FM licenses but rather make a dedicated application or a web UI for your MySQL back-end

[Trey Caliva]

But how much faster will it be?

 

It looks like it's fairly negligible.  I ran a couple of real quick tests on our solution (FM file - 130MB, 190 MySQL Tables, connecting remotely on a coffee shop's WiFi) and going directly through the ODBC driver locally only shaved about 2-3 seconds off of the load time.  It appears when FileMaker initially connects to the External Data Source it runs a Describe Statement on each table in the MySQL database regardless if an ODBC connection is already established on the server.  That's where your slowdown is (in our case, to perform that check on all 190 tables, it can take between 30 sec and 1:30 min to make the initial connection remotely, on the local network, between 5 and 10 secs).  Compare this to hosting the MySQL database AND the FileMaker file locally which only takes around 5 seconds to load!

 

One tip I would give you is to make sure FileMaker isn't having to load any additional data besides what I described above.  In our solution, I have a blank layout (with a dummy local FM table) which opens first.  Otherwise, FileMaker performs the above and then loads data before even beginning with our startup script.

[truelifeajf]

I've just learned that I don't get any email updates of posts that I follow so I'll have to work out why.

 

But in reply to this thread... thanks for your reply

[Lee Smith]

Try his link My Profile, it is a checkbox choice.