Re: Performance

What you are seeing is the time it takes to scroll 17,000 lines of data across your screen. It has nothing to do with Oracle's response time. You could be getting the result set returned to Plus in less than a second (and probably are) and it will still take a minute just to write all that data to the screen.

You can tune the database until the cows come home, but so far you haven't yet shown that the database is at fault, and have actually shown that, at this point, the bottleneck is your screen display subsystem. I'd do a TKPROF to see how the DATABASE is performing on that query.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 18:25:29 GMT, "Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yes with the Plus test scrolling across the screen, that's what it was. I'm
>not complaining that it is slow, I'm just checking if
>there are ways to optimize or if this is the normal response time.
>Retreiving that many records is
>not the norm but it can happen. Even with 3000 or so, it is slow...again,
>not the norm but if the user wants to see all
>3000 on the screen, up to him/her. No, I haven't tried anything yet, just
>started looking at it. What about storage parameters? Just looking for some
>suggestions on where to start to possibly improve speed.
>
>
>"Ed Stevens" <spamdump_at_nospam.noway.nohow> wrote in message
>news:3d7cddb3.21695256_at_ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
>> So, is it taking a minute for Oracle to return a result set, or is it
 taking a
>> minute for Plus to scroll 17,000 rows across you screen? What are you
 really
>> measureing, and how are you measuring it? Have you tried an explain plan?
 A
>> trace? A TKPROF?
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:53:45 GMT, "Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, I was a little vague.
>> >Win2000
>> >P3 900 mhz
>> >384 RAM
>> >Oracle 8 , testing on local machine only, not even on server with
 concurent
>> >users.
>> >
>> >I'm trying to optimize our db, I'm testing our SQL calls and seeing if
>> >indexing would help speed up the program. We can retreive records from
>> >different
>> >levels in the program, the higher the level the more records. I tried a
>> >straight call (select * from table), it has 60 fields, 17,000 recs and it
>> >took close to 1 min
>> >to get all the rows. This is from SQL*Plus, so obviously in a program
 with
>> >user interface, getting all the record plus all the lookups makes it ever
>> >slower. The fields
>> >are basic varchars, integers, couple of varchar2(255), 1 longraw with
 hardly
>> >any images in it.
>> >
>> >Lucas
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Michael J. Moore" <hicamel_x_the_spam_at_attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:u04f9.259894$aA.44922_at_sccrnsc02...
>> >> With the small amount of information you have given, I'd say that
 generally
>> >> you are right, that's pretty darn slow.
>> >> But if you are running on Win95, with 500 concurrent users, and your
 columns
>> >> are imbedded tables or clobs,
>> >> maybe that is totally reasonable. You really need to give a lot more
>> >> information for anybody to make the kind of assessment you are looking
 for.
>> >>
>> >> "Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:bV3f9.10197$_J3.409715_at_news0.telusplanet.net...
>> >> > With just a basic (select * from ATable ) that has 60 fields and
 17,000
>> >> > records it takes close to 1 min to retrieve all the row, seems slow
 to
 me?
>> >> > Or am I expecting too much?
>> >> >
>> >> > Lucas
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Ed Stevens
>> (Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)
>
>

--
Ed Stevens
(Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)