[Release] Fastest MySql System [C#]

[stealarcher]

if im not mistaken this is exactly how impulse did his in his source.

[Spirited42]

Originally Posted by stealarcher

if im not mistaken this is exactly how impulse did his in his source.

You are 100%, completely mistaking ><"
This isn't even remotely like his...
His is 600+ lines more than my system...

[-impulse-]

Originally Posted by Spirited

You are 100%, completely mistaking ><"
This isn't even remotely like his...
His is 600+ lines more than my system...

Now depends, I wrote my wrapper because I hate MySQL syntax errors and how often they appear when you have to write your queries. Using functions to add parameters and so, it's much safer.

Though, the problem isn't really about how you manage your queries when you are dealing with MySQL. The problem is you have to restart your server once a few hours if you are using the .NET wrapper they give you. There is a bug in it.
One connection only can't handle all data and might close because of overloading, and, using the pool, after a few hours, your connections will be unusable. I managed to 'fix' a bit the wrapper(they give the source) and it only gives one errors once a few hours when you want to read data. My server is staying up for 1 day without restart, with at least 25 players every moment(for now only ) up to 90(max yet) and there is no problem with MySQL.

I suggest you use MySQL pooling, and try to fix the problem yourself, to prove you are worthy of having a server. I will not release the dll though.

[Korvacs]

Or just switch to MsSQL where the problem doesnt exist in the first place.

[-impulse-]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Or just switch to MsSQL where the problem doesnt exist in the first place.

But then it would be harder to link php with the database. With MySQL there is everything already set up and it's just easier.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by -impulse-

But then it would be harder to link php with the database. With MySQL there is everything already set up and it's just easier.

Pretty backwards thinking, your priority should always always be the server, choosing a database just because the web side of things is more convenient is plain wrong...

[Spirited42]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Pretty backwards thinking, your priority should always always be the server, choosing a database just because the web side of things is more convenient is plain wrong...

Actually... this handler was a MsSql handler...
It can easily be converted back.

[Secured]

Originally Posted by -impulse-

But then it would be harder to link php with the database. With MySQL there is everything already set up and it's just easier.

That's why ASP.NET exist.

[|NeoX]

tho asp.net hosts are more expensive

[Secured]

Originally Posted by |NeoX

tho asp.net hosts are more expensive

You don't need an asp.net host for hosting local, since it's for interacting with the server

[Basser]

Funny how anyone believes this is new or even an imporvement on what most sources use right now. It's the same thing.
Next time you choose to 'compare' your fantastic work to existing work, run some tests and post the results here.
Calling yourself the best makes you look like an idiot anyway. Unless you can prove it ofc.

[Spirited42]

Originally Posted by Basser

Funny how anyone believes this is new or even an imporvement on what most sources use right now. It's the same thing.
Next time you choose to 'compare' your fantastic work to existing work, run some tests and post the results here.
Calling yourself the best makes you look like an idiot anyway. Unless you can prove it ofc.

This system skips a lot of steps and doesn't store any data (thus using less RAM). It rids of 5 dictionaries in Impulse's system and uses 600 less lines. Learn what efficiency is before you post another comment on one of my threads.

PS: Yes. I know it's not the best. That's why I put it there. Challenge me if you think it's not with actual facts, not trolling.

[_tao4229_]

From a good programmar -> more lines (depending on the situation) = more efficient.

It's backwards to what you guys think it is.

Searching for a value in a sorted list - which is more efficient?

for (int i : list)
{
     if (i == val) return true;
}
return false;

or

int mid, min, max;
do {
  if (min >= max) return false;

  mid = (min + max) / 2;

  if (list[mid] < val) max = mid - 1;
  else if (list[mid] > val) min = mid + 1;
} while (list[mid] != val);
return true;

is more efficient at finding a value in a large set of sorted numbers?

[Spirited42]

Originally Posted by _tao4229_

From a good programmar -> more lines (depending on the situation) = more efficient.

It's backwards to what you guys think it is.

Searching for a value in a sorted list - which is more efficient?

for (int i : list)
{
     if (i == val) return true;
}
return false;

or

int mid, min, max;
do {
  if (min >= max) return false;

  mid = (min + max) / 2;

  if (list[mid] < val) max = mid - 1;
  else if (list[mid] > val) min = mid + 1;
} while (list[mid] != val);
return true;

is more efficient at finding a value in a large set of sorted numbers?

That isn't the case though in this instance. Making 5 dictionaries for values to be send as objects is useless. All it is is a string builder. If you know how to build the string yourself, then the code isn't even needed.

[KraHen]

And PHP can be easily linked to mssql.