From: spamdump@nospam.noway.nohow (Ed Stevens) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Performance Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:45:48 GMT Organization: IGS Internet News Server (AUSTIN) Lines: 61 Message-ID: <3d7cddb3.21695256@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: gsine08.us.sine.ibm.com X-Trace: ausnews.austin.ibm.com 1031593317 17712 9.14.6.48 (9 Sep 2002 17:41:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ausnews.austin.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:41:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 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" 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" wrote in message >news:u04f9.259894$aA.44922@sccrnsc02... >> With the small amount of information you have given, I'd say that generally >> you are right, that's pretty darn slow. >> But if you are running on Win95, with 500 concurrent users, and your columns >> are imbedded tables or clobs, >> maybe that is totally reasonable. You really need to give a lot more >> information for anybody to make the kind of assessment you are looking for. >> >> "Lucas" wrote in message >> news:bV3f9.10197$_J3.409715@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.)