SQL stored procedure takes longer to run in batch than interactively. -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: SQL stored procedure takes longer to run in batch than interactively.
From: Bobby Adams <bobby_adams@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 11:45:10 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi All,

We have an SQL stored procedure that deletes records from a table and then inserts records into the table using a view. The view uses an SQL function that calls an RPG procedure in a service program. If I run the the stored procedure from a 5250 session interactively, it runs in about 35 minutes. It should insert just over 7 million records, but after 4 hours of running in batch it had only inserted 3,300 records. What would account for such a difference in behavior between batch and interactive?

I am using "CALL PGM(DP/UPDCSTCACH)" to run it interactively or submit it to batch. We are baffled.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Bobby Adams

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: SQL stored procedure takes longer to run in batch than interactively. , Bobby Adams
Re: SQL stored procedure takes longer to run in batch than interactively. , Charles Wilt

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.