Re: Performance

The advice to use TKPROF is good and you should certainly do it. An easier way for you is to set in SQL*Plus

   set termout off
   set timing on
and optionally
  spool a_file
and run the query again but from a script (termout off does not work for interactive commands).
I am pretty sure your prompt returns fast (even faster without spooling) and that the rows are in the spoolfile.
Even putting another window over the scrolling SQL*Plus window or minimize it during the query could improve performance. Writing to the screen makes it so slow.

Lucas <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws tI5f9.10234$_J3.426166_at_news0.telusplanet.net...
| 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.)
|
|
Received on Mon Sep 09 2002 - 16:38:10 CDT