Re: Slow Crystal Reports with Oracle
From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:39:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1066675176.722974_at_yasure>
kris p wrote:
Once again ... the chances of this being an Oracle issue are small. Not zero. But small. But you have enough
stuff here that on the surface makes no sense no one can possibly help you. Please explain why you choose
to not use the native connection, what MFC has to do with anything between Oracle and Crystal, and what
it is about what you are doing that requires making a simple task so convoluted.
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:39:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1066675176.722974_at_yasure>
Do you equate "don't want to " with "can't"? Why?First thing you should do is stop using the ODBC connection.Can't, I have to use ODBC.
How did MFC get into the mixture? What are you people actually doing?Then, since it is not your report you should find someone that knows something about it and determine whether the issue is Oracle, Crystal, or the connection.The report works fast on MSSQL, whether from CR Designer or from our program. It also works fast when the report is run from CR Designer but it crawls when run from our MFC program. Oracle server CPU usage goes to 100% whether on a p4 1.8 or a 2 CPU Xeon server. Maybe some parameters that we give cause this. How could I trace what the Oracle server is doing when it's maximizing the CPU like this? Thanks, kristoff plasun
Once again ... the chances of this being an Oracle issue are small. Not zero. But small. But you have enough
stuff here that on the surface makes no sense no one can possibly help you. Please explain why you choose
to not use the native connection, what MFC has to do with anything between Oracle and Crystal, and what
it is about what you are doing that requires making a simple task so convoluted.
-- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)Received on Mon Oct 20 2003 - 20:39:23 CEST