Re: Performance advice

Andy Kent wrote: > At a site I was on recently I got a report down from 30 hours to 19 > minutes by re-writing a piece of SQL. Not with a single ONCONFIG > change. Not even with any changes to indexes. I never said that tuning SQL is pointless. I've helped make a 15 hour report become a 30 minute report. Numbers are approx (this is quite a few years ago) but the report couldn't complete during overnight processing when started soon after 5pm, and I know it became sub-1 hour. > You are right, both config and SQL must be looked at. But short of > doing something really silly like leaving buffers at 200 or sticking > the whole thing on an uncached RAID 5 array, I don't see how you can > do anything like the amount of damage with a dodgy config as you can > with bad SQL (or bad indexing, or bad optimisation). I can (see how a bad config can do damage to performance) there's heaps of opportunity for crippling an engine, and that affects everyone; further, it's unfair to the poor programmers who are sent on a wild goose chase looking to "fix" SQL's that probably don't need touching. > The config that was posted might not have been perfect but it > certainly wasn't disastrous. So I wouldn't expect tweaking it to buy > more than an extra 10-20%. I suspect they're looking for a lot more > than that. The Op said: I am wondering how I should edit my onconfig for performance - to both take advantage of the new memory and make up for past flubbishness of other admins. I know this is probably a lot to ask, but I am really not up to speed yet on IDS (but I am working on it!) </end op> so it sounds like she (sumGirl) is looking to confirm the config is decent, and/or seek out some noticable gains. Even if the gains can only be modest, it's an easy and noble achievement.