Re: SE vs OnLine results question

John White writes: > > I'm the guy that said I was going to be comparing OL vs SE. I've got >some preliminary results back from the first test suite and it has raised >some questions. > > I created a test script that would create, load, and index 4 tables. >This would test insert and index performance. The insert performance was >consistently worse in Online (12-75% depending on the bytes/row - the larger, >the worse). The wierd things is that as I added indexes, the gains that >OnLine brought diminished. It went like this: > > Table # Indexes Pct Faster > 1 4 +265 > 2 8 +82 > 3 8 +44 > 4 2 -22 > > I declared rootdbs to be 20M and the testdbs to be 171M. They share a >191M drive. The tables take up 71M. All of the indexes are unique. > > My question to the OnLine heads: Is there an obvious fundamental >flaw in my setup that is causing the indexing performance to degrade? >I need to know ASAP as it might invalidate all further tests. > > - john (john%elsouth@concert.net) It is not clear at all what measurement your numbers represent. Pct Faster than what? Are you saying that the whole create/load/index was faster? Please explain your table (above) more clearly. In general, you will probably find that SE outperforms OnLine in low user count tests (1 user is the extreme). This is because OnLine is designed to handle high user, high throughput operations. Testing it with one user is incurring a lot of overhead for that one user. As your user count increases, that overhead is amortized over more users and it becomes more efficient. Try testiong 20 users inserting into those tables, and you should find that OnLine outperforms SE by a large factor. Dave -- Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc. ************************************************************************** "I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25, but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney