RE: SELECT statament running slow until terminated with 25587 err
Dear Jack,
we r joining 4 table together, below is their row size and columns
Table Name tbA
Row Size 633
Number of Rows 39966
Number of Columns 71
Table Name tbB
Row Size 267
Number of Rows 44871
Number of Columns 40
Table Name tbC
Row Size 470
Number of Rows 53597
Number of Columns 81
Table Name tbD
Row Size 355
Number of Rows 9097
Number of Columns 71
For PDQPRIORITY setting, is it the MAX PDQPRIORTITY setting in ONCONFIG file
you're asking for? If yes, the setting is 80.
I have 2GB of temp dbspace.
If you need more info, please let me know.
TIA,
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Parker, Jack [mailto:JParker@Engage.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:03 PM
To: Pang, JasonYL; informix-list@iiug.org
Subject: RE: SELECT statament running slow until terminated with 25587
err or c ode
Please indicate:
rowsize of tables joining,
number of rows that will be joined,
column size of columns joining,
column size of extracted columns,
where clause,
PDQPRIORITY setting,
amount of temp dbspace lying around
cheers
j.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JasonYLPang@pg.SLR.com [mailto:JasonYLPang@pg.SLR.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:21 PM
> To: informix-list@iiug.org
> Subject: SELECT statament running slow until terminated with
> 25587 error
> c ode
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> IDS 7.30.UC5
> Sun Solaris 2.6
>
> I'm trying to run SQL statement as follows:
>
> SELECT ...
> FROM tbA,tbB,tbC
> WHERE ...
> INTO TEMP tmp1 WITH NO LOG>
> CREATE INDEX tmp1_1 ON tmp1 (... , ...)>
> SELECT ...
> FROM tmp1,tbD
> WHERE ...
> INTO TEMP tmpfinal WITH NO LOG>
> DROP TABLE tmp1>
> Most of the time, this SQL statement will only take few
> minutes to complete.
> But sometime it would take up to few hours (around 10 hours)
> and terminated
> with error code 25587.
>
> 25587 - Network receive failed
>
> A system call has failed. Perform a DISCONNECT and check the
> the status of
> server. See your UNIX system administrator for assistance.
>
> When I check the status of the server and the Informix engine, all are
> working fine. Each table has around 50K of records only. Does
> anyone out
> there know what is the problem?
>
> Thanks for any answers,
>