× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Do you get the 2us performance on the program using the index? Or was that
from when you had it as a DDS logical?

Charles

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Vinay Gavankar <vinaygav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Charles,

File was changed to a Table and LFs were changed to indexes when file was
partitioned.

Both of them have the same parms as far as I can see:
MAINT *IMMED
UNIT *SSD
ACCPTHSIZ *MAX1TB
KEEPINMEM *NO
PAGESIZE *KEYLEN
25 (for the second file this is 33)
707


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Ok so 2μs for SETLL on the original "index" vs. 87us or 197us on the
replacement "index".

Are these actual SQL indexes? Or are they DDS logical files?

Regardless, any differences shown between them by DSPFD other than the
key?

Specifically:
UNIT *ANY
ACCPTHSIZ *MAX4GB
49
541
KEEPINMEM *NO

Charles

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Vinay Gavankar <vinaygav@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The data was gathered using performance tool (i-doctor I think). With
the
old file the elapsed time for SETLL operation (there is only one in the
program) took an average of 2 microsecs. With new file once it took 87
ms
and another time 197 ms.

The 3 tests were run on different days, I can't really comment on the
system load at each time. But between the second and third tests there
was
no code change, so it SEEMS that this is related to other factors, but
I
am
not sure.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx

wrote:

Define substantial...are you looking at total wall-clock run time,
CPU
usage or is the program instrumented so that you can see how long
each
loop
takes?

I wouldn't expect a difference. How many time did you run it? Is it
possible that the first index was in memory? Use SETOBJACC
POOL(*PURGE)
to
ensure that neither index is in memory between runs.

Are you sure workload on the system was comparable between runs?

Charles

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Vinay Gavankar <vinaygav@xxxxxxxxx

wrote:

Hi,

We have 2 indexes on a Table. First index is Key1, Key2 (Desc).
Second
index is Key1, Key2 (desc), key3 (desc), key4 (desc).


Key1 is 18 char, key2 & key3 are 8 numeric and key4 is 6 numeric.

We had a program which was using the first index to read all
records
for
one value of Key 1 (Setll and Reade on Key1). That program was
changed
to
use the second index (as they are planning to get rid of the first
index),
and a substantial performance degradation was observed.

Is this behavior to be expected due to the additional keys of the
second
index?

The Table is huge and partitioned. There is no Implicit Access path
sharing
in either files.

Any suggestions to improve performance would be appreciated.
--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

--
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.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.