Re: Performance

How about reading the 'designing and tuning for performance manual' You are consistently comparing apples and pears.

Regards

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

to reply remove '-verwijderdit' from my e-mail address

"Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news: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.)

>

>