APXPAWKB form has performance issues

Hi All,
Am running Oracle EBS release 12.0.4 running on HP-UX Itanium 11i.
Of late, whenever users try and pay an invoice,using the APXPAWKB, it either takes ages to save that
single transaction or the form completely hangs.
I tried re-generating the form but to no help.
Kindly assist as its end month so salaries cant be paid.
Thanks in advance.
Rajab.

Hi;
Am running Oracle EBS release 12.0.4 running on HP-UX Itanium 11i.
Of late, whenever users try and pay an invoice,using the APXPAWKB, it either takes ages to save that
single transaction or the form completely hangs.Wiht hang you mean? You get any error or screen froze?
Please follow below and see its helpful:
AUTOSELECT PERFORMANCE ISSUE IN RELEASE 11 [ID 1070374.6]
R12: Application Hangs when Finding Invoices in Enter/Adjust Invoices [ID 749757.1]
PMT:PAYMENT BATCH HANGS IN PENDING, STANDBY STATUS WHEN TRYING TO CONFIRM [ID 1017339.102]
CONFIRM PAYMENT BATCH HANGS [ID 1051730.6]
R12: Void Payment With Invoice Workbench Open Causes Application Hang [ID 436529.1]
Regard
Helios

Similar Messages

WEBUTIL - Does adding it to all forms cause performance issues?

If I add the webutil library and object library to all forms in the system (as part of a standard template) despite the fact most won't use it, will this cause any performance issues???
Thanks in advance...

The webutil user guide has a chapter on performance considerations. Have you looked at that?
The number one point from that chapter is:
1. Only WebUtil Enable Forms that actually need the functionality. Each form that is WebUtil enabled will generate a certain amount of network traffic and memory
usage simply to instantiate the utility, even if you don’t use any WebUtil
functionality.

Oracle Forms 6i performance issue

Hi All,
I have one query form.
Im using cursor in form and fetch the data directly and assign to the form block values.
There are two table involved here.
Table1 has 1 crore record.
Table2 has 4 crore record.
The query fetch the data 50-500 records.
In backend the select query is fast.
In front end ,it is taking time to load the data in grid.
How can i fetch the data quickly in front end.
Please help me out on this.
Regards,
Oracle1001

You can read documentation about this block property:
1.Query Array Size
2. Number of Records Buffered
3. Query All Records

LineTo on MouseMove has performance issue on scaled display object

Here is the scenario:
1. on mouse down on a canvas, start handling MouseMove event
2. on Mouse Move draw a line to the current mouse position
When the above processes run, the result is a descent enough
line being drawn on the canvas.
Now if we programatically scale the canvas' parent the
MouseEvent handler seems to be called less often, and the line
becomes less smooth.
This reduction in quality/performance only occurs when the
scale factor of the canvas' parent is between 1.5 and 3.3, anything
above or below this range works fine. - this is stumping us all!?
&%$£*@!
Any help, pointers, ideas, would be much apreciated.
Thanks,
Osh...

Hi,
Using a variable on the BW side is not feasible since we want to use the same BW query for a few other reports as well.
Could you please explain what you mean by 'use LAG function'.How can it be used in this scenario?
Thanks and Regards,
Smitha Mohan.

RE: Case 59063: performance issues w/ C TLIB and Forte3M

Hi James,
Could you give me a call, I am at my desk.
I had meetings all day and couldn't respond to your calls earlier.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Min [mailto:jminbrio.forte.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:50 PM
To: Sharma, Sandeep; Pyatetskiy, Alexander
Cc: sophiaforte.com; kenlforte.com; Tenerelli, Mike
Subject: Re: Case 59063: performance issues w/ C TLIB and Forte 3M
Hello,
I just want to reiterate that we are very committed to working on
this issue, and that our goal is to find out the root of the problem. But
first I'd like to narrow down the avenues by process of elimination.
Open Cursor is something that is commonly used in today's RDBMS. I
know that you must test your query in ISQL using some kind of execute
immediate, but Sybase should be able to handle an open cursor. I was
wondering if your Sybase expert commented on the fact that the server is
not responding to commonly used command like 'open cursor'. According to
our developer, we are merely following the API from Sybase, and open cursor
is not something that particularly slows down a query for several minutes
(except maybe the very first time). The logs show that Forte is waiting for
a status from the DB server. Actually, using prepared statements and open
cursor ends up being more efficient in the long run.
Some questions:
1) Have you tried to do a prepared statement with open cursor in your ISQL
session? If so, did it have the same slowness?
2) How big is the table you are querying? How many rows are there? How many
are returned?
3) When there is a hang in Forte, is there disk-spinning or CPU usage in
the database server side? On the Forte side? Absolutely no activity at all?
We actually have a Sybase set-up here, and if you wish, we could test out
your database and Forte PEX here. Since your queries seems to be running
off of only one table, this might be the best option, as we could look at
everything here, in house. To do this:
a) BCP out the data into a flat file. (character format to make it portable)
b) we need a script to create the table and indexes.
c) the Forte PEX file of the app to test this out.
d) the SQL staement that you issue in ISQL for comparison.
If the situation warrants, we can give a concrete example of
possible errors/bugs to a developer. Dial-in is still an option, but to be
able to look at the TOOL code, database setup, etc. without the limitations
of dial-up may be faster and more efficient. Please let me know if you can
provide this, as well as the answers to the above questions, or if you have
any questions.
Regards,
At 08:05 AM 3/30/00 -0500, Sharma, Sandeep wrote:
James, Ken:
FYI, see attached response from our Sybase expert, Dani Sasmita. She has
already tried what you suggested and results are enclosed.
++
Sandeep
-----Original Message-----
From: SASMITA, DANIAR
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 6:43 PM
To: Pyatetskiy, Alexander
Cc: Sharma, Sandeep; Tenerelli, Mike
Subject: Re: FW: Case 59063: Select using LIKE has performance
issues
w/ CTLIB and Forte 3M
We did that trick already.
When it is hanging, I can see what is doing.
It is doing OPEN CURSOR. But not clear the exact statement of the cursor
it is trying to open.
When we run the query directly to Sybase, not using Forte, it is clearly
not opening any cursor.
And running it directly to Sybase many times, the response is always
consistently fast.
It is just when the query runs from Forte to Sybase, it opens a cursor.
But again, in the Forte code, Alex is not using any cursor.
In trying to capture the query,we even tried to audit any statementcoming
to Sybase. Same thing, just open cursor. No cursor declaration anywhere.==============================================
James Min
Technical Support Engineer - Forte Tools
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1800 Harrison St., 17th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
james.minsun.com
510.869.2056
==============================================
Support Hotline: 510-451-5400
CUSTOMERS open a NEW CASE with Technical Support:
http://www.forte.com/support/case_entry.html
CUSTOMERS view your cases and enter follow-up transactions:
http://www.forte.com/support/view_calls.html

Earthlink wrote:
Contrary to my understanding, the <font face="courier">with_pipeline</font> procedure runs 6 time slower than the legacy <font face="courier">no_pipeline</font> procedure. Am I missing something? Well, we're missing a lot here.
Like:
- a database version
- how did you test
- what data do you have, how is it distributed, indexed
and so on.
If you want to find out what's going on then use a TRACE with wait events.
All nessecary steps are explained in these threads:
HOW TO: Post a SQL statement tuning request - template posting
http://oracle-randolf.blogspot.com/2009/02/basic-sql-statement-performance.html
Another nice one is RUNSTATS:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/ASKTOM.download_file?p_file=6551378329289980701

Performance issue with report

Hello
i am making a change to an existing custom report.I have to pull all the orders except CANCELLED Orders for a parameters passed by user.
I made a change as FLOW_STATUS_CODE<>'CANCELLED' in rdf.The not equal is causing performance issues...and it is taking lot of time to complete.
can any one sujjest what will be the best to use in place of not equal.
Thanks

Is there an index on column FLOW_STATUS_CODE?
Run your query in sqlplus through explain plan, and check the execution plan if a query has performance issues.
set pages 999
set lines 400
set trimspool on
spool explain.lst
explain plan for
<your statement>;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
spool offFor optimization questions you'd better go to the SQL forum.

Query Performance Issue based on the same Multiprovider

Hi All,
I am facing a performance issue with one of the BEx Query 1 based on a particular Multiprovider.
I have done all the kind of testing and came o a conclusion that the OLAP: Data Transfer time for the query is the max at around 820 Secs.
The surprising part is another Query 2 based on the same multiprovider runs absolutely fine without any hassles with OLAP : Data Transfer time with merely 3 Sec.
Another, surprise is that Query 2 has even more Restricted Key Figures and Calculated Key Figures but it runs smoothly.
Both the queries use cache memory.
Please suggest a solution to this.
Thanks.

Hi Rupesh,
There is no much difference between the 2 queries.
Query 1 - which has performance issue has the same filters as that of Query 2 - which is working fine.
The only difference is that the selection of Fiscal Week is in the Default Values Pane for Query 2 whereas its in Characteristics Restrictions in Query 1. I doubt whether this setting will have any effect on the performance.
Both restriction i.e Fiscal Week restriction is based on Customer exit and the rows include Hierarchy for both the queries.
I assume creating aggregates on hierarchy for the Cube can be a solution.

11.2.0.0 upgrade- performance issue when commits

We have upgraded our data warehouse system from 10.2.0.4 for 11.2.0.2. After upgrade ETL system has performance issue. Extraction is fine because we compared the explain plans before and after upgrade. However, loading is taking very long. In loading there is a commit after every 1000 records, that why its slow. Even when we import data with commit=y option its very slow. Is there any know issue on this?
Any help pl?
Thanks

We are solaris 10. ETL job on 10.2.0.3 was taking 2 hours and now its taking 11 hours.
I beleive commit is a issue because
1. Source query (Extraction) has same explain plan.
2. Source database is still on 10.2.0.3
3. Servers and network is same for 10g and 11g.
4. I already experienced COMMIT=y performance issue in import.
Thanks

Performance issue with Adobe forms

Dear SAP Experts,
We have the following issue/requirement from our client. The client is on SAP ECC 6.0 - production environment.
The client is highlighting performance issue while accessing the adobe forms for HR and FI business process ( both static and interactive ).
                Examples are
    FI – Invoice Approvals
                HR – Job Salary Change
The client is asking us to provide best practices surrounding:
1.       How to improve the performance of the adobe forms while accessing in SAP.
2.       Is there any other technology which we can use in SAP to replace the adobe forms which has better performance factor.
3.       Are there solutions such as webdynpro floor plan manager, UI Fiori which can be alternately used?
Regards,
Sakthi

Hello Priya,
     Adobe forms are easy to develop and much more comfortable than SAP Scripts and Smartforms. Initially they are a bit difficult but once you have your hands on, they are the most simplest things in ABAP.
Performance in Adobe forms is a mix of both fine tuning the Layout as well as back end coding.
Performance in Adobe forms cannot be done overnight. A lot of care has to be taken during the initial stage of development.
As far as my experience is concerned, please consider the below points while developing SAP Adobe forms.
1) Avoid Scripting (Javascript/Formcalc) as much as possible inside the form. It drastically reduces the performance and makes the form to execute slower. If you still want to use scripting(which cannot be avoided for some requirements), use Formcalc since it is comparatively faster than JavaScript.
2) Try to avoid the coding inside the Form Interface. You can always handle the maximum coding in the Driver program and pass it to the form.
3) Use Form Caching.
For forms that have fixed layout, its a good way to increase the performance of form rendering. In the layout, go to Form Properties. Then Click on Defaults tab and select Allow Form Rendering To Be Cached On Server. Then Click OK.
For forms that have flowable or dynamic layout, render the forms on the client side because it improves performance.
Last but not the least, please go through the below post by Otto Gold which is worth a read at least once.
How to write a messy form

Returning multiple values from a called tabular form(performance issue)

I hope someone can help with this.
I have a form that calls another form to display a multiple column tabular list of values(needs to allow for user sorting so could not use a LOV).
The user selects one or more records from the list by using check boxes. In order to detect the records selected I loop through the block looking for boxes checked off and return those records to the calling form via a PL/SQL table.
The form displaying the tabular list loads quickly(about 5000 records in the base table). However when I select one or more values from the table and return back to the calling form, it takes a while(about 3-4 minutes) to return to the called form with the selected values.
I guess it is going through the block(all 5000 records) looking for boxes checked off and that is what is causing the noticeable pause.
Is this normal given the data volumes I have or are there any other perhaps better techniques or tricks I could use to improve performance. I am using Forms6i.
Sorry for being so long-winded and thanks in advance for any help.

Try writing to your PL/SQL table when the user selects (or remove when deselect) by usuing a when-checkbox-changed trigger. This will eliminate the need for you top loop through a block with 5000 records and should improve your performance.
I am not aware of any performance issues with PL/SQL tables in forms, but if you still have slow performance try using a shared record-group instead. I have used these in the past for exactly the same thing and had no performance problems.
Hope this helps,
Candace Stover
Forms Product Management

Multi Select Choice on af:query has severe performance issue

Multi-select choice used with af:query through a view criteria is causing severe performance issue on deselection of "All" checkbox, if the data in the list is around 550 rows. The same component works absolutely fine when used in a form layout.
I can provide you a re-producible test case, if anyone needs it!
***: This is a customer environment issue, and customer is eager to have multi-select in this case. Appreciate any help!

Glimpse of repetitive lines from console for the above scenario:
<DCUtil> <findSpelObject> [2208] DCUtil, returning:oracle.jbo.uicli.binding.JUApplication, for TestSelectChoiceDefaultAMDataControl
<ADFLogger> <begin> Attaching an iterator binding to a datasource
<DCIteratorBinding> <getViewObject> [2209] Resolving VO:TestSelectChoiceDefaultAM._SESSION_SHARED_APPMODULE_NAME_.SessionAM.DeptReadOnly1 for iterator binding:noCtrl_oracle_adfinternal_view_faces_model_binding_FacesCtrlListBinding_59List_60
<DCUtil> <findSpelObject> [2210] DCUtil, RETURNING: <null> for TestSelectChoiceDefaultAM._SESSION_SHARED_APPMODULE_NAME_.SessionAM.DeptReadOnly1
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Attaching an iterator binding to a datasource
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <begin> Get LOV list
<DCUtil> <findSpelObject> [2211] DCUtil, returning:oracle.jbo.uicli.binding.JUApplication, for TestSelectChoiceDefaultAMDataControl
<ADFLogger> <begin> Attaching an iterator binding to a datasource
<DCIteratorBinding> <getViewObject> [2212] Resolving VO:TestSelectChoiceDefaultAM._SESSION_SHARED_APPMODULE_NAME_.SessionAM.DeptReadOnly1 for iterator binding:noCtrl_oracle_adfinternal_view_faces_model_binding_FacesCtrlListBinding_123List_124
<DCUtil> <findSpelObject> [2213] DCUtil, RETURNING: <null> for TestSelectChoiceDefaultAM._SESSION_SHARED_APPMODULE_NAME_.SessionAM.DeptReadOnly1
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Attaching an iterator binding to a datasource
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
.....many times followed by
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Attaching an iterator binding to a datasource
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <begin> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <begin> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <begin> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Get LOV list
<ADFLogger> <begin> Get LOV list
...many times

Heavy performance issues using Adobe Interactive Form PDFs generated by SAP BPM

Dear experts,
we use Adobe Interactive Form PDFs (generated with LiveCycle Designer) as Human Tasks within SAP BPM processes. The PDFs are generated and transmitted correctly, but when they are opened at the receivers PC, Windows freezes for 2-3 minutes, then the PDF opens and can be filled out and sent back. The next PDFs can be opened much faster, but when the PC is restarted, we get the same problem again. We use Adobe Reader XI (11.0.2) on our clients; is their any know performance issue?
Please note, that we have this problem with EVERY Adobe Interactive Form PDF... I created a simple PDF containing just a field and the client PC still freezes. So it can't be in the form or the scripting. Normal static PDFs can be opend without any problems.
Best regards,
David

They haven't really announced it, because there is no product to announce. Rather the opposite.
There are no conversion tools, so far as I know.
XFA forms are a non-starter if you want portability.
AcroForms are a nightmare in themselves, because the functionality is limited in Adobe Reader and varies between absent and weird in other products. No idea about Blackberry support.
You will not find a simple recommendation. Rather, you need to use Acroforms and carefully test everything (EVERYTHING: no assumptions) on every platform you intend to support.
Yes, rather unsatisfactory, but until Adobe realise that the future is platform equivalence or irrelevance, this is where we are.

Performance issue with form after 10g upgrade

Hi Team,
Last week we have upgraded our systems to 10g database.
Ever since we did an upgrade there is a huge performance issues with the custom forms and this is causing a major setback to our business. Before the upgrade the forms were running with our any performance issues.
Can anyone please help me in finding out the reason behind the performance issue(May be a tar or performance tuning).
Many Thanks in Advance.
Regards
Kumar

Like Jan said,
You must supply more information so we can help you, like where the degradation happens?, in processing? in navigation? in forms loading?? where?
You may also do a little test. Create a one button form, just a canvas and a button, you can include a message in when-button-pressed trigger.
run it and see what happens.
Tony

PERFORMANCE ISSUE IN LOV(ORACLE FORMS)

I have a requirement to populate an LOV in a Form Which is taking LOT of TIME (PERFORMANCE ISSUE)
the Record Group Query is as
select segment1 INVENTORY_ITEM ,
inventory_item_id,
description,
primary_uom_code,
decode(service_item_flag, 'Y', service_duration, NULL) service_duration,
service_duration_period_code,
shippable_item_flag,
Decode(bom_item_type ,
1,'MDL',2,'OPT',3,'PLN',4,
Decode( service_item_flag,'Y','SRV',
Decode( serviceable_product_flag,'Y','SVA','STD'))) item_type_code
from mtl_system_items_b --table name
where organization_id = :QOTLNDET_LINES.ORGANIZATION_ID
AND (bom_item_type = 1 or bom_item_type = 4)
AND vendor_warranty_flag = 'N'
AND primary_uom_code <> 'ENR'
AND ((:QOTLNDET_LINES.LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'ORDER' and customer_order_enabled_flag = 'Y') OR
(:LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'RETURN' and NVL(returnable_flag, 'Y') = 'Y'))
AND segment1 like :QOTLNDET_LINES.INVENTORY_ITEM || '%'
When ever i give :QOTLNDET_LINES.INVENTORY_ITEM from Front end This LOV need to be displayed.
IT IS TAKING MORE THAT 3 MINUTES DEPENDING ON THE ITEM GIVEN.
SUGGEST ME TO REDUCE THIS TIME.
Thanks,
Durga Srinivas
Edited by: DurgaSrinivas_886836 on May 31, 2012 5:14 PM

I had an idea ,
record_group1=
select segment1 INVENTORY_ITEM ,
inventory_item_id,
description,
primary_uom_code,
decode(service_item_flag, 'Y', service_duration, NULL) service_duration,
service_duration_period_code,
shippable_item_flag,
Decode(bom_item_type ,
1,'MDL',2,'OPT',3,'PLN',4,
Decode( service_item_flag,'Y','SRV',
Decode( serviceable_product_flag,'Y','SVA','STD'))) item_type_code
from mtl_system_items_b --table name
where organization_id = :QOTLNDET_LINES.ORGANIZATION_ID
AND (bom_item_type = 1 or bom_item_type = 4)
AND vendor_warranty_flag = 'N'
AND primary_uom_code 'ENR'
AND ((:QOTLNDET_LINES.LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'ORDER' and customer_order_enabled_flag = 'Y') OR
(:LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'RETURN' and NVL(returnable_flag, 'Y') = 'Y'))
AND segment1 like :QOTLNDET_LINES.INVENTORY_ITEM
Record_group2 =
select segment1 INVENTORY_ITEM ,
inventory_item_id,
description,
primary_uom_code,
decode(service_item_flag, 'Y', service_duration, NULL) service_duration,
service_duration_period_code,
shippable_item_flag,
Decode(bom_item_type ,
1,'MDL',2,'OPT',3,'PLN',4,
Decode( service_item_flag,'Y','SRV',
Decode( serviceable_product_flag,'Y','SVA','STD'))) item_type_code
from mtl_system_items_b --table name
where organization_id = :QOTLNDET_LINES.ORGANIZATION_ID
AND (bom_item_type = 1 or bom_item_type = 4)
AND vendor_warranty_flag = 'N'
AND primary_uom_code 'ENR'
AND ((:QOTLNDET_LINES.LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'ORDER' and customer_order_enabled_flag = 'Y') OR
(:LINE_CATEGORY_CODE = 'RETURN' and NVL(returnable_flag, 'Y') = 'Y'))
AND segment1 like :QOTLNDET_LINES.INVENTORY_ITEM || '%'
If i can give Full item name then dynamically I will assign Record_group1 else i will assign Record_group2 by using Set_LOV_Property()
so that if i give full item name lov is populated quickly .
Suggest me Which Triggers Should i use.
Edited by: DurgaSrinivas_886836 on May 31, 2012 6:49 PM

Strange performance issue with 3510/3511 SAM-FS disk cache

Hi there!
I'm running a small SAM-QFS environment and have some strange performance issue on the disk storage part, which somebody here might be able to explain.
Configuration: one 3510, dual controller, RAID-5 9+1, one hot spare and one disk not configured for whatever reason. The R5 logical drive hosts a 150GB LUN for SAM-QFS metadata (mm in SAM-FS speak) and a 1TB LUN for data (mr in SAM-FS speak). Further, there are two small LUNs (2GB, 100GB) for some other purpose. Those two LUNs have nearly no I/O. All disks are SUN146G. Host connection is 2GBit, multipathing enabled and working.
Then the disk cache became too small, and the customer added a 3511 expansion unit with SUN300G disks. One logical drive is a RAID-1, 1+1, used for NetBackup catalog. The other is a RAID-5, 8+1, providing two LUNs: 260GB SAM-FS metadata (mm) and 1.999TB SAM-FS data (mr).
For SAM-FS, the LUNs form two file systems: one "residing" in the 3510, the other "residing" in the 3511 expansion. Cabling is according to the manual and checked several times by several independant people. Operating system is Solaris 10, hardware is a V880.
The problem we observe: SAM-FS I/O on LUNs on disks inside the 3510 is fine. With iostat, I see 100MB/s read and 50MB/s write at the same time. On the SAM-FS file system which is running on the two LUNs in the 3511, the limit seems to be at 40MB/s read/write. Both SAM-FS file systems are configured the same in regards of block size.
In case I have activity on both SAM-FS file systems, I see 100MB/s+ on the LUN running inside the controller shelf and another 40MB/s on the disk runnin in the 3511 expansion chassis. So, the controller is easily capable of handling 150MB/s.
Cache settings in the 3510 controller are default I think (wasn't installed by me), batteries are fine.
Is this 40MB/s we experience a limitation by the expansion shelf? Don't think so. Anybody has any ideas on this? What parameters to check or to change? Any hint appreciated. I can also provide further details if needed. Thank you.
wolfgang

SUN300G disks sound like 300GB FC disks.
Depending on how many files are in the SAMFS file system, sharing the mm and mr devices on the same RAID array can be a pretty horrible idea. In my opinion and experience, it's almost always better to NEVER put more than one LUN on a RAID array. Period. Putting more than one LUN on an array results in IO contention on that array. And large, unnaturally configured (9+1? Why?) RAID arrays will have problems from the start.
What are the block sizes used on the RAID arrays? It wouldn't surprise me to see that the RAID array on the expansion tray has a very large block size. Larger block sizes are, in general, not better. Especially for SAMFS metadata - which IIRC is something like 8k or 16k blocks.
I suspect what is happening is most of the metadata updates are going to the mm device on the new array, contending with the IO operations on the file data.
How much space is left on each mm device? What does "iostat -sndxz 2" show when you're having the IO problems?

APXPAWKB form has performance issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for