bug 105745

Posted in 1999

Topics: Performance & Tuning, Server Administration

Carlson@WHSmith — Tue, 06 Apr 1999 15:18:28 GMT — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

Has anyone else in 7.30 been bitten by this one? Statistics can mess up the optimizer and the main workaround is to drop distributions. Just checking . . . John Carlson Informix DBA WHSmith USA

↪ replying to Carlson@WHSmith

Barry Leb — Tue, 06 Apr 1999 22:40:18 GMT — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

Got bit by it in 7.24. Thought it was fixed in 7.30. "Carlson@WHSmith" <carlson1@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Has anyone else in 7.30 been bitten by this one? Statistics can mess up >the optimizer and the main workaround is to drop distributions. >Just checking . . . >John Carlson >Informix DBA >WHSmith USA Barry Leb Sr DBA Information Technology Division Harland 2939 Miller Road Decatur, GA 30035 Phone: (770) 593-5050 x6137 Fax: (770) 593-5420 email: bleb@harland.net

↪ replying to Barry Leb

Felix K. Mathews — Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:39:17 -0700 — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

Barry Leb wrote: > Got bit by it in 7.24. Thought it was fixed in 7.30. > > "Carlson@WHSmith" <carlson1@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >Has anyone else in 7.30 been bitten by this one? Statistics can mess up > >the optimizer and the main workaround is to drop distributions. > > >Just checking . . . > > >John Carlson > >Informix DBA > >WHSmith USA > > Barry Leb > > Sr DBA > Information Technology Division > Harland > 2939 Miller Road > Decatur, GA 30035 > > Phone: (770) 593-5050 x6137 > Fax: (770) 593-5420 > email: bleb@harland.net I think there was some other problem introduced in 7.30 UC6, one of our customer sites upgraded from 7.30 UC5 to 7.30 UC6 before we completed our performance test on UC6, a batch job which used to take 3-4 Hrs. in 7.30 UC5 took more than 1500 times the time it used to take for each step (they didn't go beyond 2/5 steps), but it worked fine in their test run (that is why they decided to use UC6). We asked our customer to reinstall 7.30 UC5. For the past 3-4 months that batch job takes only about 3-4 hrs. as it is expected to. We don't support any of our customers to use 7.30 UC6 (we black listed it), later versions like 7.31 are supposed to be fixed for that optimization problem, but we haven't done performance tests on 7.31. -- Have a nice day Felix K. Mathews

↪ replying to Felix K. Mathews

David Williams — Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:54:47 +0100 — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

In article <370BDE94.610B4647@systems.dhl.com>, Felix K. Mathews <fmathews@systems.dhl.com> writes > >I think there was some other problem introduced in 7.30 UC6, one of our >customer sites upgraded from 7.30 UC5 to 7.30 UC6 before we completed our >performance test on UC6, a batch job which used to take 3-4 Hrs. in 7.30 UC5 >took more than 1500 times the time it used to take for each step (they didn't >go beyond 2/5 steps), but it worked fine in their test run (that is why they >decided to use UC6). We asked our customer to reinstall 7.30 UC5. For the >past 3-4 months that batch job takes only about 3-4 hrs. as it is expected >to. > >We don't support any of our customers to use 7.30 UC6 (we black listed it), >later versions like 7.31 are supposed to be fixed for that optimization >problem, but we haven't done performance tests on 7.31. > Do you have a bug number as I have a customer we upgraded last weekend running 7.30.UC6-1... >-- >Have a nice day > >Felix K. Mathews > -- David Williams