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

["Peter Burton" <peter.burton@oracle.com>]

Luc,

No problem ...

Please keep in mind that SQR v9 is a Unicode based application and will 
therefore be slower (depends on what you are doing) than SQR v3 which is not a 
Unicode application.

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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:16 AM
To: sqr-users@sqrug.org
Subject: RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9


Hi Peter,


> What .lic files are in the license directory
>
> /opt/hyperion/common/LicenseStandalone/Licenses
>
> There should only be the one for SQR in that directory (unless you have other
products installed).


There are 2 files in the Licenses directory :

-rwxrwxr-x   1 sybase   infd        6731 Jun 19 13:29 HS9_SA_TempFile.lic
-rwxrwxr-x   1 sybase   infd       25857 Jun 19 13:29 HS9_TempFile.lic


> Also, make sure that there isn't an environment variable called
LM_LICENSE_FILE set.  This could cause some problems.

The LM_LICENSE_FILE variable was not set.

When I remove file HS9_TempFile.lic file, I got performance closer to
the version 3 performance. The difference is now 0.7s which should
be acceptable. Case closed.

Thanks for your help !

Luc.



> -----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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:29 AM
> To: sqr-users@sqrug.org
> Subject: RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9
>
>
> Thanks, Peter.
>
> > Could be the license logic but that is not something that can be controlled
by
> any setting available to the user.
> >
> > You do not need to provide a database connection for those reports which do
> not require one.  Simply specify "/" for the connectivity and specify the -XL
> command line flag.
> >
> >     sqr hello / -xl
>
> ok, there is no difference wether I include the -xl option or not :
>
> $ sqr sqrworld / -xl
> Hyperion System 9 BI+ Production Reporting Server - 9.3.0.1.0.836
> Copyright (c) 1994-2007 Hyperion Solutions Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
>
> (SQR 8906) Warning:  The product license will expire on 20-aug-2007.
> Hello World.
>
> SQR: End of Run.
>
> real    0m9.48s
> user    0m0.54s
> sys     0m0.24s
>
> In any case, this must rule out that the difference is due to the
> database interface.
>
> Thanks,
> Luc.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:41 AM
> > To: sqr-users@sqrug.org
> > Subject: RE: [sqr-users] Performance difference v3 vs v9
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Peter, changing the -B parameter doesn't help.
> >
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> > Yes, that's what I thought too. It certainly is not a database sql
> > performance problem since the database is the same for both versions.
> >
> > The increase is not linear, always about 9 to 10 seconds slower, no
> > matter how long the report runs.
> >
> > My sqr program looks like :
> >
> > $ cat sqrworld.sqr
> > begin-report
> > show 'Hello World.'
> > end-report
> > $
> >
> > I execute the program with the unix time command.
> >
> > executed with v3 :
> >
> > SQR: Structured Query Report Writer V3.0.7.0.1
> > Copyright (C) MITI, 1994, 1995.  All Worldwide Rights Reserved.
> >
> > Hello World.
> >
> > SQR: End of Run.
> >
> > real    0m0.03s
> > user    0m0.02s
> > sys     0m0.01s
> >
> > executed with v9 :
> >
> > Hyperion System 9 BI+ Production Reporting Server - 9.3.0.1.0.836
> > Copyright (c) 1994-2007 Hyperion Solutions Corporation.  All Rights
Reserved.
> >
> > (SQR 8906) Warning:  The product license will expire on 20-aug-2007.
> > Hello World.
> >
> > SQR: End of Run.
> >
> > real    0m9.47s
> > user    0m0.61s
> > sys     0m0.23s
> >
> >
> > Could it be because this is a test license ?
> > The time is spent between printing the copyright line and the
> > warning about the expiration date (I don't know if that output
> > is buffered).
> >
> > (There is a difference between 3 and 9: even when the program doesn't
> > need a database connection, v 9 establishes a connection while 3 doesn't
> > (I know because I have to provide valid username/password/server information
> > for v9 and not for v3). If the program requires a database connection,
> > the time difference between the 2 is also between 9 and 10 seconds).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Luc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
>
> ____
> Luc Van der Veurst
> UZ Brussel.
>
> Email efficient: mail niet in html, gebruik geen images in signatures!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

____
Luc Van der Veurst
UZ Brussel.

Email efficient: mail niet in html, gebruik geen images in signatures!



_______________________________________________
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