Re: Disappointing test results from 9.40

Thanks Rich. I'll refer this on to IBM UK Tech Support to see if they think it may be the same. Th thing that suggests it *might* not be is that I got worse performance altering a table whose indexes I dropped first. My IBM call reference is 386713. I've been asked for the following, which will take some time to collate, before the call can be progressed: env onconfig online.log table schema onstat -a --recursively, three times over the course of theoperation should do for starters !! onstat -g all --recursively (as above) regards Neil "Rich Campbell" <rich.campbell@att.com> wrote in message news:bql0qm$q3c19@kcweb01.netnews.att.com... > Neil, > > I see the same. > > We are using 9.40 FC2 for Solaris 2.8. > > A bug has been opened for my case: > > Index builds taking 50-300 % longer then in 7.31 regardless of amount of PDQ > resources allocated. Slowness shows up with larger tables. In our case > 150-800 mill rows. > > Support says that the engine is erroneously writing empty pages to the > physical log when building the index. A fix is slated. > onstat -D will confirm this behavior for 9.40 FC. You will not see thisin > 7.31. > > I also see slowness (~50 %) with onpload for large tables with same symptom. > > Rich > > "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message > news:bqg8jn$21e6lv$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de... > > HP-UX 11.11 > > > > I'm doing some benchmark testing on a critical process to our client - > alter > > fragment init ... in dbspace of medium and large tables. In every case, > > 9.40 (I'm trying both FC1 and FC2) is substantially (that is 20-40%) > > *slower* than the equivanlent statement on 9.21 FC4. > > > > I have kaio enabled in all the tests, and am using the same $ONCONFIG file > > for each, so the test ought to be pretty representative of the IDS > versions' > > performance under HP-UX 11.11. Actually, I disabled kaio for one test and > > it made no difference. > > > > Has anyone else had a similar, or contrary, experience with IDS v9.40? > > > > thanks > > Neil > > > > > >