Subject | RE: [firebird-support] Performance Problem |
---|---|
Author | rambabu.piridi@wipro.com |
Post date | 2007-08-28T05:41:25Z |
Hi Anderson,
If the problem is with my Java code, then why the difference
occurred between two different configurations.
I'm using simple code, which fetches the data from db and writes into
some file. If it is problem with my code, then why it
is working better in single processor machine.
Regards,
Rambabu
________________________________
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anderson Farias
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:16 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Performance Problem
Hi Rambabu,
Are you sure your performance problems came from FB? Did you debug
through
your code?
I've deployed 1.5.3 Classic over at leat 3 Windows SMP boxes (with and
without SCSI RAID) and it performs great... from my little experience, a
*lot* better than SuperServer on the very same machines.
BTW, even your best performance, 9 min for 15k rows seems bad. I believe
this should not be more 30 sec (executing the select based on an index,
fetching rows, writing to some text file).
Regards,
Anderson
If the problem is with my Java code, then why the difference
occurred between two different configurations.
I'm using simple code, which fetches the data from db and writes into
some file. If it is problem with my code, then why it
is working better in single processor machine.
Regards,
Rambabu
________________________________
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anderson Farias
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:16 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Performance Problem
Hi Rambabu,
Are you sure your performance problems came from FB? Did you debug
through
your code?
I've deployed 1.5.3 Classic over at leat 3 Windows SMP boxes (with and
without SCSI RAID) and it performs great... from my little experience, a
*lot* better than SuperServer on the very same machines.
BTW, even your best performance, 9 min for 15k rows seems bad. I believe
this should not be more 30 sec (executing the select based on an index,
fetching rows, writing to some text file).
Regards,
Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: <rambabu.piridi@... <mailto:rambabu.piridi%40wipro.com> >
>4. Modified the sever type to Classic server and started export of
15,000
>records on multiprocessor >machine, even then also it took more than 1
>hour.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]