Re: USEOSTIME and performance

SaTriGuy wrote: > > >I have been asked to check the performance differences between USEOSTIME > >on and off. I expected the that there would be a slightly better > >performance (4-5% according to manual) with USEOSTIME = 0/No. This > >isn't the case on the tests done, in fact it is exactly the reverse. > >With USEOSTIME set to 1/Yes it is consistently better by 4-5%. > > > >The test script is a simple insert into a temp table, no time > >information used. > > > >Anybody care to comment, or spot something I've missed > > > > If the table does not make use of any "time" column, then the impact of > USEOSTIME would not come into effect. The difference in the time would be due > to some other factor, possibably some key pages already in the bufferpool. I consider that, so started to use time information as well - the results were still the same. The buffering I don't know but stopping and restarting the engine between each test should make the buffer position consistent and again the results were to opposite to those of the manual Very strange > > Madison Pruet -- Paul Watson # WF Software Ltd # It said run using Windows 95 Tel: +44 1436 674629 # or better in the manual Fax: +44 1436 678693 # so I used Unix www.wfsoftware.co.uk #