From: "Sybrand Bakker" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Performance Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:50:02 +0200 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: "Sybrand Bakker" References: <3d7cddb3.21695256@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 106 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" wrote in message news:tI5f9.10234$_J3.426166@news0.telusplanet.net... > Yes with the Plus test scrolling across the screen, that's what it was. I'm > not complaining that it is slow, I'm just checking if > there are ways to optimize or if this is the normal response time. > Retreiving that many records is > not the norm but it can happen. Even with 3000 or so, it is slow...again, > not the norm but if the user wants to see all > 3000 on the screen, up to him/her. No, I haven't tried anything yet, just > started looking at it. What about storage parameters? Just looking for some > suggestions on where to start to possibly improve speed. > > > "Ed Stevens" wrote in message > news:3d7cddb3.21695256@ausnews.austin.ibm.com... > > So, is it taking a minute for Oracle to return a result set, or is it taking a > > minute for Plus to scroll 17,000 rows across you screen? What are you really > > measureing, and how are you measuring it? Have you tried an explain plan? A > > trace? A TKPROF? > > > > On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:53:45 GMT, "Lucas" wrote: > > > > >Ok, I was a little vague. > > >Win2000 > > >P3 900 mhz > > >384 RAM > > >Oracle 8 , testing on local machine only, not even on server with concurent > > >users. > > > > > >I'm trying to optimize our db, I'm testing our SQL calls and seeing if > > >indexing would help speed up the program. We can retreive records from > > >different > > >levels in the program, the higher the level the more records. I tried a > > >straight call (select * from table), it has 60 fields, 17,000 recs and it > > >took close to 1 min > > >to get all the rows. This is from SQL*Plus, so obviously in a program with > > >user interface, getting all the record plus all the lookups makes it ever > > >slower. The fields > > >are basic varchars, integers, couple of varchar2(255), 1 longraw with hardly > > >any images in it. > > > > > >Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Michael J. Moore" wrote in message > > >news:u04f9.259894$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.) > >