Re: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point, Greg. Poorly performing SQL interactively can really bring a 
system to its knees. Don't ask how I know!

So running the batch job in debug is still a good idea, as it might give 
ideas on how to improve the performance, esp. recommended indexes. I 
recommend going to www.iseries.ibm.com/db2, clicking on the Support tab, 
look for technical articles and white papers, which will include how to 
improve performance. And there are links to InfoCenter, which, at V5R3, has 
some nice lists for tasks, such as dealing with performance.

BTW, I'm not giving specific links for 2 reasons: 1) I don't know them; 2) 
it's worth exploring this website on your own.

In addition to STRDBG, there's always STRDBMON. But the resulting data 
files are not fun to work with. There're some sample queries at the above 
site, as I recall. Also, OpsNav Visual Explain can be used. In addition, if 
you do a lot of this kind of thing or want more extensive tools, check out 
www.centerfieldtechnology.com - they have better tools for testing various 
settings, such as in the QAQQINI file, than OpsNav has.

HTH
Vern

At 07:01 AM 4/21/2005, you wrote:
> subject: Re: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL?
>
> Other people on your system must love you.   Running a 1 hour batch job
> interactively and taking 10 minutes.  Unless your system is different than
> mine, the rest of your users were wondering "what's going on, why is the
> system so slow".
>
> Keep it in batch
>
> Greg
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.