RE: SQL performance with Local journalling -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: RE: SQL performance with Local journalling
From: Evan Harris <spanner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:49:46 +1300
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Eric,

that's why I got them to run it the other way round - i.e. with journalling on first - to try and eliminate this factor. Is there something else I should be thinking.

Regards
Evan Harris

At 08:55 a.m. 24/02/2005, you wrote:

Maybe they need to purge the file from storage...

When they turned journaling off and reran the query, the object was already
paged into a storage pool, giving the illusion of exceptional performance.

Use the CLRPOOL command before each run...

hth,

Eric DeLong
Sally Beauty Company
MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
940-297-2863 or ext. 1863

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: SQL performance with Local journalling , Vernon Hamberg

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.