RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9

["franck\.masson" <franck.masson2002@laposte.net>]

The approach of steve is correct
first try to execute a sqr code without any select statement
to get the time needed to launch sqr and to do a login to the database.

Franck,

---------- Debut du message initial -----------

De     : sqr-users-bounces+franck.masson2002=laposte.net@sqrug.org
A      : "This list is for discussion about the SQR database reportinglanguage 
from Hyperion Solutions." sqr-users@sqrug.org
Copies :
Date   : Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:45:03 +1000
Objet  : RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9

> If the difference is always 10s, then it looks more like a startup problem 
>than a sql perf problem (i.e. the increase is not linear)
> i.e. a 0.07s report now takes 10.81s/   Does a 100s report take 110s?
> How long does a report that returns 0 rows take?
> You could trace the SQR execution time by placing a datenow() function as the 
>first as last commands of the program.
> Steve.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sqr-users-bounces+steve.cavill=infoclarity.com.au@sqrug.org
> [mailto:sqr-users-bounces+steve.cavill=infoclarity.com.au@sqrug.org] On 
>Behalf Of Peter Burton
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2007 10:04 PM
> To: This list is for discussion about the SQR database reporting languagefrom 
>Hyperion Solutions.
> Subject: RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9
>
> Luc,
>
> You might try changing the fetch buffer row value (-Bnn).  Other than passing 
>this value to the CT-Lib software this is not used by
> SQR.  The default value for SQR 9.3 is 100.  Earlier versions of SQR used 
>different values.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sqr-users-bounces+peter.burton=oracle.com@sqrug.org 
>[mailto:sqr-users-bounces+peter.burton=oracle.com@sqrug.org] On Behalf Of
> Luc Van der Veurst
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:25 AM
> To: sqr-users@sqrug.org
> Subject: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9
>
>
> Hello,
>
> We are still running sqr version V3.0.7.0.1 :-).
>
> Since re-investigating in what report generation tool we will use in the 
>future will be on next year's budget, we wondered if our
> sqr code would sitll run under v9.
>
> Therefore, we installed version 9.3.0.1.0.836.
>
> Our reports still work, so that was the good news, but version 9 is much 
>slower than version 3.
>
> A report that runs with v3 in 0.07s seconds takes 10.81s in v9. The report 
>just selects one column from one tuple in the database.
>
> We see this difference in all our reports: they take about 10 seconds more to 
>run.
>
> Our environment :
>
> OS : Soralis 8
> DB : Sybase ASE 12.5.3
>
> Hyperion says that the difference is due to the fact that
> v3 uses dblib while v9 uses ctlib.
> I find this hard to believe, we have other dblib and ctlib programs to 
>compare.
>
> What I did notice is that sybase's libraries are linked statically into sqr 
>v3 while there are more libraries dynamically loaded in
> v9 :
>
> v3 :
>
> $ ldd /local/sybase/workbench_30/bin/sqr
>         libnsl.so.1 =>   /lib/libnsl.so.1
>         libc.so.1 =>     /lib/libc.so.1
>         libdl.so.1 =>    /lib/libdl.so.1
>         libmp.so.2 =>    /lib/libmp.so.2
>         /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-4/lib/libc_psr.so.1
>
> v9 :
>
> $ ldd /local/sybase/Hyperion/BIPlus/bin/SQR/Server/Sybase/bin/sqr
>         libbtunicode.so =>
> /local/sybase/Hyperion/BIPlus/bin/SQR/Server/Sybase/lib/libbtunicode.so
>         libCrun.so.1 =>  /lib/libCrun.so.1
>         libC.so.5 =>     /lib/libC.so.5
>         libsocket.so.1 =>        /lib/libsocket.so.1
>         libnsl.so.1 =>   /lib/libnsl.so.1
>         libct.so =>      /local/sybase/sdk125/clt/lib/libct.so
>         libcs.so =>      /local/sybase/sdk125/clt/lib/libcs.so
>         libtcl.so =>     /local/sybase/sdk125/clt/lib/libtcl.so
>         libcomn.so =>    /local/sybase/sdk125/clt/lib/libcomn.so
>         libintl.so =>    /local/sybase/sdk125/clt/lib/libintl.so
>         libm.so.1 =>     /lib/libm.so.1
>         libdl.so.1 =>    /lib/libdl.so.1
>         libc.so.1 =>     /lib/libc.so.1
>         libthread.so.1 =>        /lib/libthread.so.1
>         libmp.so.2 =>    /lib/libmp.so.2
>         /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-4/lib/libc_psr.so.1
> $
>
>
> 1. Does anyone had similar experiences with performance after an
>    upgrade ?
>
> 2. Does anyone has relinked ldd so that more libraries are statically
>    linked ?
>
> Thanks,
> Luc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sqr-users mailing list
> sqr-users@sqrug.org
> http://www.sqrug.org/mailman/listinfo/sqr-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sqr-users mailing list
> sqr-users@sqrug.org
> http://www.sqrug.org/mailman/listinfo/sqr-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sqr-users mailing list
> sqr-users@sqrug.org
> http://www.sqrug.org/mailman/listinfo/sqr-users
> 

Créez votre adresse électronique prenom.nom@laposte.net
1 Go d'espace de stockage, anti-spam et anti-virus intégrés.


_______________________________________________
sqr-users mailing list
sqr-users@sqrug.org
http://www.sqrug.org/mailman/listinfo/sqr-users