Performance

[Stephan]

Oracle 8.1.7 NT2000:

Running 2 databases on the same machine, 'same' init parameters.

- in database 1 I imported the full user-scheme (say 30 tables).
- in the database 2 I imported only 2 tables of that user-scheme (one
having
20 records, the other 2000).

* When I select from database 2 by means of:
"select id_district, district_name FROM district, district_street where
(district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"
the performance is good.
* Running the same query against database 1 gives very poor
performance: 2
seconds for retrieving the 3 records!!

The explain-plan for the querie is the same on datab1 and datab2.
SELECT STATEMENT Cost = 3
HASH JOIN
TABLE ACCESS FULL DISTRICT
INDEX FAST FULL SCAN DISTRICT_STREET_UNIQUE

When I drop all objects from database 1 execept the 2 tables, the
performance stays poor....

Please help me!

Thanks
Stephan

[DA Morgan]

Stephan wrote:

> -> I am running 2 instances simultaniously
> -> Memory is no problem, so swapping does not occur
> -> There are two tablespaces: 100Mb each, storage: initial 250K next 250K
>
> Today I loaded the two tables in the scott/toger default 8.1.7 ORCL
> database.
> As I expect, the performance is perfect on that one.
> I installed again the full scheme in another instance, selected from the
> same tables
> using same query and response is bad...
>
> -> So it seems the other tables DO influence...
>
> Stephan
>
> "Stephan" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:Jq%P9.23$Ua7.11811@nlnews00.chello.com...

> > Oracle 8.1.7 NT2000:
> >
> > Running 2 databases on the same machine, 'same' init parameters.
> >
> > - in database 1 I imported the full user-scheme (say 30 tables).
> > - in the database 2 I imported only 2 tables of that user-scheme (one
> > having
> > 20 records, the other 2000).
> >
> > * When I select from database 2 by means of:
> > "select id_district, district_name FROM district, district_street where
> > (district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"
> > the performance is good.
> > * Running the same query against database 1 gives very poor
> > performance: 2
> > seconds for retrieving the 3 records!!
> >
> > The explain-plan for the querie is the same on datab1 and datab2.
> > SELECT STATEMENT Cost = 3
> > HASH JOIN
> > TABLE ACCESS FULL DISTRICT
> > INDEX FAST FULL SCAN DISTRICT_STREET_UNIQUE
> >
> > When I drop all objects from database 1 execept the 2 tables, the
> > performance stays poor....
> >
> > Please help me!
> >
> > Thanks
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Your conclusion is not valid.

Given the information you have provided I could speculate as to dozens of
reasons for the difference. But having more tables isn't one of them.

Daniel Morgan

[Stephan]

================================================== ====
The total story till now:

Win2000
8.1.7.

- I started having 1 instance called PREV
- In PREV, I imported the PREVENT scheme containing about 30 tables
- I analyzed (COMPUTE) the PREVENT scheme
- I query from only 2 tables of that PREVENT-scheme (one -DISTRICT- having
20 records, the other -DISTRICT_STREET- 2000).
- When I select from the PREV database by means of:
"select id_district, district_name FROM district, district_street where
(district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"

the performance is between 200msec and 2sec for generating 3 records (poor)!

- In the PREV database I created a copy of the district table by means of:
"create table district2 as select * from district"
- I analyzed (COMPUTE) the PREVENT scheme again
- When I select from the PREV database by means of:
"select id_district, district_name FROM district2, district_street where
(district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"
the performance is between 1msec and 10msec for generating the 3 records
(good)!
==============================================
So why is the performance using the imported table (20 records!) so bad?
(does Oracle treat it different than the copy-table? conversion?)


Please help...
Stephan

[Karsten Farrell]

Stephan wrote:

> ================================================== ====
> The total story till now:
>
> Win2000
> 8.1.7.
>
> - I started having 1 instance called PREV
> - In PREV, I imported the PREVENT scheme containing about 30 tables
> - I analyzed (COMPUTE) the PREVENT scheme
> - I query from only 2 tables of that PREVENT-scheme (one -DISTRICT- having
> 20 records, the other -DISTRICT_STREET- 2000).
> - When I select from the PREV database by means of:
> "select id_district, district_name FROM district, district_street where
> (district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"
>
> the performance is between 200msec and 2sec for generating 3 records (poor)!
>
> - In the PREV database I created a copy of the district table by means of:
> "create table district2 as select * from district"
> - I analyzed (COMPUTE) the PREVENT scheme again
> - When I select from the PREV database by means of:
> "select id_district, district_name FROM district2, district_street where
> (district_id=id_district) AND (place_street_id=707)"
> the performance is between 1msec and 10msec for generating the 3 records
> (good)!
> ==============================================
> So why is the performance using the imported table (20 records!) so bad?
> (does Oracle treat it different than the copy-table? conversion?)
>
>
> Please help...
> Stephan
>

From your post, it looks like the district and district2 tables are
identical. Since that's the case, it's probably not the table that's
causing the slowdown. What else enters into the picture? Well,
unfortunately, lots of things ... none of which we can guess from your
post. But here are some of the things to check (and by all means, do an
explain plan):

1. You didn't mention anything about which optimizer you're using ...
though I hope it's the cost-based optimizer since you're at 8.1.7
(instead of one of the older versions that had trouble with CBO). If
your init.ora doesn't specify CBO, then the analyze will be for naught.

2. You didn't mention anything about indexes. Do you have the same
indexes on both tables? On such small tables, an index would be a
hindrance instead of a help (though CBO should be able to determine
this). Explain plan will tell you.

3. You didn't mention if both test runs are done on a "quiet" system (so
you'd not be comparing apples and oranges). Don't want to penalize the
slow job because it was competing with a large batch job.

4. You didn't mention whether you ran each test only once ... or if you
ran the faster one twice (in which case you'd have the district table -
and maybe the district_street table - in cache). In fact, if you were on
a quiet system and ran the faster query after running the slower one,
you'd probably have both tables in SGA cache anyhow (they are pretty
small, unless you have a very small SGA defined). Do you get the same
results if you run the queries in the opposite order?

[Marina]

First off, why not just run this code and see which is faster?

In this scenario, putting either of these in a loop, should probably be
around the same running time. In either case you are declaring the variable
inside the loop, so it is being reallocated every time.

The best way to find out, is to just run it and see.

"Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...

> I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
>
> A:
>
> If ....
> Then
> Dim xy As MyClass
> xy = 'something'
> End If
>
> or
>
> B:
>
> Dim xy As MyClass
> If ....
> Then
> xy = 'something'
> End If
> xy = Nothing
>
> I hope somebody can tell me,
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>

[Kevin Spencer]

Where's the loop?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
[url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
Big things are made up of
lots of little things.

"Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...

> I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
>
> A:
>
> If ....
> Then
> Dim xy As MyClass
> xy = 'something'
> End If
>
> or
>
> B:
>
> Dim xy As MyClass
> If ....
> Then
> xy = 'something'
> End If
> xy = Nothing
>
> I hope somebody can tell me,
>
> Thanks
> Rob
>

[Karl Seguin]

Yes, and in my opinion you should always use the most restrictive scope
possible. So if you don't need xy outside of the IF, don't declare outside
of the IF.

Karl

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netRemuvThis> wrote in
message news:uoQabmSUDHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Not sure of the speed difference, but you will be unable to use xy outside
> of the If in version 1, while you can use it throughout the function in

#2.

> It is a question of scope, to me, not performance.
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
>
>

************************************************** **************************

> ****
> Think Outside the Box!
>

************************************************** **************************

> ****
> "Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...

> > I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
> >
> > A:
> >
> > If ....
> > Then
> > Dim xy As MyClass
> > xy = 'something'
> > End If
> >
> > or
> >
> > B:
> >
> > Dim xy As MyClass
> > If ....
> > Then
> > xy = 'something'
> > End If
> > xy = Nothing
> >
> > I hope somebody can tell me,
> >
> > Thanks
> > Rob
> >

>
>

[Marina]

I think it would make a difference if the declaration takes place inside the
loop, or outisde the loop.

If we imagine that there is a loop around the entire code snippets, then I
think it woudl make a difference. The variable is reallocated on every run
of the loop, the way it is written now. If the declaration was outside the
loop, then it would be allocated once, and that's all.

So even if the variable is only needed in the loop, declaring it outside
should be slightly more efficient.

"Karl Seguin" <kseguin##crea.ca> wrote in message
news:Og3oOuSUDHA.1588@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> Yes, and in my opinion you should always use the most restrictive scope
> possible. So if you don't need xy outside of the IF, don't declare

outside

> of the IF.
>
> Karl
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netRemuvThis> wrote

in

> message news:uoQabmSUDHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> > Not sure of the speed difference, but you will be unable to use xy

outside

> > of the If in version 1, while you can use it throughout the function in

> #2.

> > It is a question of scope, to me, not performance.
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Beamer
> > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
> >
> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > ****
> > Think Outside the Box!
> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > ****
> > "Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
> > news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...

> > > I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
> > >
> > > A:
> > >
> > > If ....
> > > Then
> > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > xy = 'something'
> > > End If
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > B:
> > >
> > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > If ....
> > > Then
> > > xy = 'something'
> > > End If
> > > xy = Nothing
> > >
> > > I hope somebody can tell me,
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Rob
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Karl Seguin]

Here's a better conversation on this topic...though it deals with C I
believe it still fully applies to this:

[url]http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=9u59rd%245jrv%241%40news3.infoave.net&rn um=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dc%2Bdeclare%2Binside%2Bor%2Boutside%2 Ba%2Bloop%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D9u59rd%25245jrv%25241%2540news3.infoave .net%26rnum%3D8[/url]


"Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edCXdxSUDHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> I think it would make a difference if the declaration takes place inside

the

> loop, or outisde the loop.
>
> If we imagine that there is a loop around the entire code snippets, then I
> think it woudl make a difference. The variable is reallocated on every run
> of the loop, the way it is written now. If the declaration was outside the
> loop, then it would be allocated once, and that's all.
>
> So even if the variable is only needed in the loop, declaring it outside
> should be slightly more efficient.
>
> "Karl Seguin" <kseguin##crea.ca> wrote in message
> news:Og3oOuSUDHA.1588@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > Yes, and in my opinion you should always use the most restrictive scope
> > possible. So if you don't need xy outside of the IF, don't declare

> outside

> > of the IF.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netRemuvThis> wrote

> in

> > message news:uoQabmSUDHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> > > Not sure of the speed difference, but you will be unable to use xy

> outside

> > > of the If in version 1, while you can use it throughout the function

in

> > #2.

> > > It is a question of scope, to me, not performance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Beamer
> > > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> > > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
> > >
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > Think Outside the Box!
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > "Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
> > > news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...
> > > > I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
> > > >
> > > > A:
> > > >
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > B:
> > > >
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > > xy = Nothing
> > > >
> > > > I hope somebody can tell me,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Kevin Spencer]

That's why I asked "where's the loop?"

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
[url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
Big things are made up of
lots of little things.

"Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edCXdxSUDHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> I think it would make a difference if the declaration takes place inside

the

> loop, or outisde the loop.
>
> If we imagine that there is a loop around the entire code snippets, then I
> think it woudl make a difference. The variable is reallocated on every run
> of the loop, the way it is written now. If the declaration was outside the
> loop, then it would be allocated once, and that's all.
>
> So even if the variable is only needed in the loop, declaring it outside
> should be slightly more efficient.
>
> "Karl Seguin" <kseguin##crea.ca> wrote in message
> news:Og3oOuSUDHA.1588@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > Yes, and in my opinion you should always use the most restrictive scope
> > possible. So if you don't need xy outside of the IF, don't declare

> outside

> > of the IF.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netRemuvThis> wrote

> in

> > message news:uoQabmSUDHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> > > Not sure of the speed difference, but you will be unable to use xy

> outside

> > > of the If in version 1, while you can use it throughout the function

in

> > #2.

> > > It is a question of scope, to me, not performance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Beamer
> > > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> > > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
> > >
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > Think Outside the Box!
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > "Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
> > > news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...
> > > > I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
> > > >
> > > > A:
> > > >
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > B:
> > > >
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > > xy = Nothing
> > > >
> > > > I hope somebody can tell me,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

You could end up creating a lot of structs, which would take a bit of a hit,
but not enough to be really noticeable, unless the scale was huge. The
decision where to put the variable is largely a matter of scope. Restricting
scope is a good practice. There may be times you need to expand scope for
performance, but I would not let performance always win, as a rule. In
general, maintainability costs far more than performance. And security,
which can be compromised by scoping variables too wide, can get real
expensive.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge

************************************************** **************************
****
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** **************************
****
"Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edCXdxSUDHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> I think it would make a difference if the declaration takes place inside

the

> loop, or outisde the loop.
>
> If we imagine that there is a loop around the entire code snippets, then I
> think it woudl make a difference. The variable is reallocated on every run
> of the loop, the way it is written now. If the declaration was outside the
> loop, then it would be allocated once, and that's all.
>
> So even if the variable is only needed in the loop, declaring it outside
> should be slightly more efficient.
>
> "Karl Seguin" <kseguin##crea.ca> wrote in message
> news:Og3oOuSUDHA.1588@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > Yes, and in my opinion you should always use the most restrictive scope
> > possible. So if you don't need xy outside of the IF, don't declare

> outside

> > of the IF.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netRemuvThis> wrote

> in

> > message news:uoQabmSUDHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> > > Not sure of the speed difference, but you will be unable to use xy

> outside

> > > of the If in version 1, while you can use it throughout the function

in

> > #2.

> > > It is a question of scope, to me, not performance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Beamer
> > > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> > > Author: ADO.NET and XML: ASP.NET on the Edge
> > >
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > Think Outside the Box!
> > >

> >

>

************************************************** **************************

> > > ****
> > > "Rob" <robert_dx@gmx.com> wrote in message
> > > news:008501c35128$b2f813d0$a101280a@phx.gbl...
> > > > I like to know which code is the faster one for a loop:
> > > >
> > > > A:
> > > >
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > B:
> > > >
> > > > Dim xy As MyClass
> > > > If ....
> > > > Then
> > > > xy = 'something'
> > > > End If
> > > > xy = Nothing
> > > >
> > > > I hope somebody can tell me,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Werdin Jens]

Werdin Jens wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Ich have a big performance problem.
> I'm running postgres 7.4.2 on Suse Linux 9.0 on a dual Xeon 3.0 GHz with 3
> Gbyte Ram.
> In postgres.conf I'm using the defaults.

That's the place to start. See the guide at:
[url]http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html[/url]
For your hardware, the default configuration settings are far too small.
Oh, and you should upgrade to the latest 7.4 as soon as convenient.

#
Thanks for that link. It helped me very in understanding the configuration
file.
I changed the shared buffers to 16384 and the shmmax and shmall to
137822208.
#

> Filesystem is ext3 with writeback
> journaling
>
> I have 3 tables with ca 10 million entries with a gist index on GIS data

and

> 5 tables with 10 million entries with an index on

(timestamp,double,double).

> There are 10 tables with 1 million entries and index on int. and some
> smaller tables.
>
> With 1 Gbyte Ram all went fine. Than I added a new table and it startet to
> swap. I added 2 Gbyte but the Problem is still there.
> The kswapd and kjournald are running nearly permanently.

If the system is swapping that's not likely to be due to PostgreSQL,
especially on the default configuration settings.

> The first time I do a query it takes very long. But the second time it

goes

> a lot faster.

That's because the data is cached in RAM the second time.

> Is postgres only using a certain amount of Ram for the indexes? But why my
> Ram is full then?
> Am I too short of Ram? Is the filesystem too slow?

What is "top" showing for memory usage?
What does vmstat show for activity when you are having problems?

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
#
Thank you for your help so far and
here comes the output of top and vmstat:


Tasks: 55 total, 2 running, 53 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.7% user, 9.6% system, 0.0% nice, 89.7% idle
Mem: 3104688k total, 3025320k used, 79368k free, 21084k buffers
Swap: 2104504k total, 4128k used, 2100376k free, 2788828k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ SWAP COMMAND
301 postgres 16 0 132m 132m 131m D 22.9 4.4 0:12.03 184 postmaster
11 root 15 0 0 0 0 R 6.0 0.0 6:00.68 0 kswapd
13969 root 16 0 616 572 460 S 0.3 0.0 3:45.64 44 top
313 root 15 0 940 940 744 R 0.3 0.0 0:00.08 0 top
1 root 15 0 80 64 60 S 0.0 0.0 0:04.19 16 init
2 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0
migration_CPU0
3 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0
migration_CPU1
4 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0
migration_CPU2
5 root RT 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0
migration_CPU3
6 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.88 0 keventd
7 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:05.32 0
ksoftirqd_CPU0
8 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.18 0
ksoftirqd_CPU1
9 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:03.23 0
ksoftirqd_CPU2
10 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.50 0
ksoftirqd_CPU3
12 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:10.03 0 bdflush
13 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:11.52 0 kupdated
14 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:02.19 0 kinoded
15 root 25 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0
mdrecoveryd
21 root 16 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0 scsi_eh_0
24 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:19.95 0 kjournald
124 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.57 0 kjournald
487 root 15 0 264 236 224 S 0.0 0.0 28:43.54 28 syslogd
490 root 15 0 952 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.06 948 klogd
535 root 19 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0 khubd
645 root 20 0 60 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 56 resmgrd
668 bin 16 0 72 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 68 portmap
713 root 20 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 64 acpid
722 root 15 0 428 252 200 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.03 176 sshd
761 ntp 15 0 2196 2196 1872 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.12 0 ntpd
927 root 15 0 384 180 140 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.24 204 master
983 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.12 24 nscd
984 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.01 24 nscd
985 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.09 24 nscd
986 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.06 24 nscd
987 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.05 24 nscd
988 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.07 24 nscd
989 root 15 0 420 396 340 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.05 24 nscd
990 root 15 0 156 128 92 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.10 28 cron
1070 root 19 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.12 64 mingetty
1071 root 18 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.04 64 mingetty
1072 root 18 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.05 64 mingetty
1073 root 15 0 304 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.07 300 login
1074 root 18 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.05 64 mingetty
32070 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 0 lvm-mpd
32170 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 4:51.93 0 kjournald
17632 root 19 0 68 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.09 64 mingetty
32745 root 16 0 372 4 4 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.07 368 bash
8777 postfix 15 0 380 188 124 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.20 192 qmgr
10996 postgres 15 0 596 280 228 S 0.0 0.0 0:03.67 316 postmaster



procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
wa
0 0 4140 80896 21020 2792540 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 99
0

procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
wa
0 1 4180 79664 21072 2794700 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 99
0


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[Fred Herring]

A few questions about internet bandewith if I may. Web services allows data
to be uploaded as well as downloaded. Why is upload speed substantailly
lower then dlownload speed? If a web service application is required to
push a lot of data what are the options for greater performance. I get
confused when I look up hosting services. They all seem oriented towards web
page hosting vice web service hosting.

Thanks,
Fred Herring

[Dan Rogers]

This really isn't a topic related to web serivces. It's more about how
non-commercial and low priced ISP accounts work. In a shared connection
scenario, many ISP's throttle upstream bandwidth for a variety of reasons
(consider that clicking on a URL is less intensive than downloading a web
page with text and images - and you can see why they split the load in this
way).

Most non-commercial ISP's forbid running web sites (and thus web services).
That aside, if you were to host a web service, your outbound data would be
throttled by the connection limits of the caller. Your ISP would also see
this as upstream data, and may cause further throttling. Not a pretty
picture.

But this isn't a web service issue per se.
--------------------

>Thread-Topic: performance
>thread-index: AcUk7nWGKaMLrBzwTY200haeCGGNDA==
>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 130.76.32.145
>From: =?Utf-8?B?RnJlZCBIZXJyaW5n?= <FredHerring@discussions.microsoft.com>
>Subject: performance
>Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:25:04 -0800
>Lines: 9
>Message-ID: <086EC080-942F-4AD9-BDFB-E4EC8FABEEEA@microsoft.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.1.29
>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSF TNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es:28553

>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservic es
>
>A few questions about internet bandewith if I may. Web services allows

data

>to be uploaded as well as downloaded. Why is upload speed substantailly
>lower then dlownload speed? If a web service application is required to
>push a lot of data what are the options for greater performance. I get
>confused when I look up hosting services. They all seem oriented towards

web

>page hosting vice web service hosting.
>
>Thanks,
>Fred Herring
>

[this.sonix]

Hi

I have some Performance Problems in my Database Query.
I had to Join 8 Tables for this Intranet-phonebook (department,
superdepartments, functions, ..) in one Query.
So I think this is why the Query is so slow.
Does anyone has experience with Structures / Query Objects ? Are they faster ?
Can I join Structures, too ?

Thx for Help, Sonix

[warddc]

One thing you can do is be sure that all the columns you are joining on are indexed.

dave.

[CF_Oracle]

Also indexing columns for which you have filters especially character (varchar)
datatype could help.
The other recommendation - avoid distinct and sorting (order by) if posssible.
Do you really need to join 8 tables at once? Try to split in 2 or more.
Use queries of query could help too.
Creating stored procedures and materialized views in database will improve
performance.