Subject | Re: FB Size Limitations/Performance Questions |
---|---|
Author | Alexander V.Nevsky |
Post date | 2003-10-15T15:49:49Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "russell_infocare"
<russell@i...> wrote:
1. Perhaps cache was completely occupied when building indices. Try
query once more.
2.
Super but seems to me 2K is low for it, I use this setting on Classic.
Note change of cashe buffers don't affect already established
connections (I know this about Classic, perhaps Super should be
rebooted to accept new parameter).
3. Are you sure server computer is'nt busy at this time by another
applications or FB server by another users? Reported time is real time
from start to finish, not exactly spent by query, if server is busy,
it increases.
I use mentioned indices since FB 0-9.4 times and they speed up my
database (2432 indices) approximately 3 times.
Best regards,
Alexander.
<russell@i...> wrote:
> Hi Alexander and others, I have been sitting at Andre's shoulder andReally strange, all statistics shows it must be faster.
> following this.
> We created the indexes as suggested by Alexander and the results are
> worse for no apparant reason
1. Perhaps cache was completely occupied when building indices. Try
query once more.
2.
> Buffers: 2,048Is it SuperServer? Try to increase it 4 times, I'm not familiar with
Super but seems to me 2K is low for it, I use this setting on Classic.
Note change of cashe buffers don't affect already established
connections (I know this about Classic, perhaps Super should be
rebooted to accept new parameter).
3. Are you sure server computer is'nt busy at this time by another
applications or FB server by another users? Reported time is real time
from start to finish, not exactly spent by query, if server is busy,
it increases.
I use mentioned indices since FB 0-9.4 times and they speed up my
database (2432 indices) approximately 3 times.
Best regards,
Alexander.