I have created this script that does lot of writes to a single global. DB write performance is much slower than expected (compared to another similar systems).
In terms of general through-put design and long term support, I'm considering what would be a "best approach" for needing to create multiple batch files in a few different layouts from the same data-sets.
Please excuse my ignorance. I am trying to identify what areas would be best to review in the System Dashboard (for Cache 2010.2) for performance issues with the database. It seems to be running slower than usual, but I am trying to find out the best way to go about identifying what the issue is.
The following are captures from the System Dashboard.
We are experimenting with IIS, as the PWS will be gone in newer versions.
The code which is executed, takes 15ms to run. If we execute it through PWS (REST), there is some overhead and the total execution time is 40ms, which is acceptable. However, if we go through IIS, it takes 150ms or sometimes even more.
Both PWS and IIS are running on the same server as IRIS in this case. No optimisations have been done on IIS.
Any suggestions on where to look/what to optimize on IIS?
Let's suppose two different routines use one and the same chunk of code. From the object-oriented POV, a good decision is to have this chunk of code in a separate class and have both routines call it. However, whenever you call code outside of the routine as opposed to calling code in the same routine, some execution speed is lost. For reports churning through millions of transactions this lost speed might be noticeable. Any advice how to optimize specifically speed?
I would like to get a list of all globals that have been read or written during a given context. In Portal, there are counters in dashboard that give the number of read/write to globals in general.
What I am looking for :
- some handler (eg: like $ZTRAP) that will be called everytime something is read/written to a global.
- to activate a "global log mode" in Portal that will dump some information to a file (like ^ISCSOAP for SOAP requests).
Is there a difference in outcome between the two screengrabs below?
In both cases, when certain conditions are met, a transformation is called and the output sent on to two targets. In the first case we surmise the transformation is called twice, and the output of the first run sent to the first target, the output of the second run to the second target. In the second case we surmise the transformation is called once, and the output duplicated and sent to the two targets.
Online document says: TUNE TABLE updates the SQL table definition (and therefore requires privileges to alter the table definition). Commonly, TUNE TABLE also updates the corresponding persistent class definition. This allows the gathered statistics to be used by the query optimizer without requiring a class compilation.
Can someone direct me to where in the documentation we can find how consumption may be calculated for global storage?
Caché Version
2010.1
Operating System
HP OpenVMS 8.4
EDIT: After receiving some responses, it seems I was unclear in my initial inquiry. I am looking to determine our rate of consumption of storage; however, I am having some difficulty in doing that.
I'm trying to find the faster way to get the data from a class, and I find it very slow compared to traditional globals. So, I hope some of you can bring some light to me :-)
I have thousands of registers in a class, and to access it quickly I'm going with $o at the index. From there, I get the values using $listget(). Something like that:
On local environment, calling Foo() is instantaneous (a few ms). On production/test servers (which have much better hardware than local) calling this function is slow and take between 200 ms to 800 ms. Obviously starting a new job with "job" command take lot of time on those environments.
I have a queue that I need to traverse and perform operations on. To distribute the workload across multiple processes, I used a Work Queue Manager do process and I'm not expecting any status from it So, I skipped Sync / WaitForComplete in my implementation
While I can see the benefits that $ZSTORAGE could have if used properly, I have not seen it used in the environments I have worked in. I was wondering if there are any developers that promote its usage.
If used properly, I would imagine it could be highly effective in maximizing free memory since some processes will never go over X amount, while others may very well need much more.
Has anyone got any experience of using the Microsoft diskspd utility to test the storage infrastructure in Healthshare/Ensemble environment.
I am interested in getting some figures to highlight any issues with different approaches to provisioning the disks on our new environment.
I am at a loss as to what parameters I should use to give a reasonable synthetic load that will give me any indication of potential issues. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated!
I have a ZEN page with nine tablepanes. Each tablepane queries a table in the same SQLServer db. I have a single SQLGateWay(odbc) to this SQLServer db. I need to get better performance when I query all nine table at the same time. Would my performance improve if I had nine SQLGateWays(nine odbc configurations/connections), one for each query? I would appreciate any and all suggestions for getting the very best performance when using SQLGateWays. Thank you.
If I test the Native api for Node.js from the documentation, I noticed (if I'm correct) all methods and calls are synchronous. By default due to the nature of Node.js, there is only one thread of execution and normally all JavaScript methods and all calls should be asynchronous and use either a callback function (the "old way") or promises or the async/await contruct to return their result, e.g.:
I have been asked to assist in the planning of the a new server for our database, which we will be changing operating systems from OpenVMS to Linux (RedHat distribution). However, its difficult to find material regarding what would be recommended, which is likely due to the database being proprietary.
In looking at the information provided below and hoping to decrease processing time, would anyone be able to recommend type of configuration we should have for the new Linux server? Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.
Suppose we need to store millions of values temporarily, that means, we don't care about them if we lose them but our application use them to get realtime information. Should I use Cachetemp or whatever other DB without journaling enabled? If answer is Cachetemp, shouldn't be a problem if we decide to scale using App Server + ECP? I'm not sure what would happen with the app logic in such architecture as I guess I couldn't map and share cachetemp...
I'm working on a project with my client. They have a visit table which has about 7,000,000 records. The table is used in a random search page witch holds 20+ conditions to be combined. The table is defined as below:
Having been inspired with Shared code execution speed question/discussion, I dare to ask another one which is annoying me and my colleagues for several weeks.
We have a routine called Lib that comprises 200 $$-functions of 1500 code lines total. It was noticed that after calling _any_ function of another rather big routine (1900 functions, 32000 lines) the next call of $$someFunction^Lib(x) is getting 10-20% slower than previous call of the same function. This effect doesn't depend on:
By likes