Best Upgrade to Improve Performance?

I'm looking for the most economical way to boost Aperture's performance. The specs on my equipment are as follows:
Dual 2.0 ghz G5 Tower (first generation)
160 gb internal HD (where my current projects and masters are stored)
320 gb external Lacie HD (for backup, and where I move older master files)
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 64 mb (stock)
2 gb RAM
OS X 10.4.9, just reformatted and reinstalled over the weekend
20" Apple Cinema Display (ADC)
All photos are from my Nikon D80, which is 10 mp, so 2888x3600 pixels.
In a nutshell, Aperture really chokes on these files. It can handle 10 mp JPEG's OK, or 6 mp RAW files OK, but 10 mp RAW files are just a bit too much for it. Loading an image can take a long time, and as adjustments add up it really bogs down. I basically can't use sliders for anything, I just have to type in a value or click along the slider bar and let it jump there. Rotate is completely unusable. It still WORKS, but it's just slow and inefficient. Exporting JPEGs for uploading to my website takes painfully long.
I bumped my RAM up to 2 gb a few months ago, and it hasn't made as much of an improvement as I'd hoped. Of course Aperture and OSX have the tendency to gobble up whatever RAM they can, and I suspect the machine will still end up paging out at some point no matter how much RAM I add.
Hard drive access doesn't seem to be too much of a problem, at least until the memory starts paging anyway. I have an ok amount of capacity so far, but my gut is telling me that this isn't the bottleneck. From everything I've read on the forum here, I suspect it's my lame graphics card. While I wouldn't mind having 4 gb of RAM and 1 tb of hard disk, I doubt that's going to help me as much as a Radeon X800 XT would in the near-term. Do you all agree with that? Is that the only real solution, this being an AGP Mac with an ADC monitor?
As much as I'd like a new Mac Pro, I just don't see that happening. What I'd want would be in the $3,000-4,000 range, and some of my workhorse programs are not universal yet. I still use Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, and GoLive 6, so I'd need to up to CS3 for full compatibility. $$$ I do some CAD work with PowerCADD, and that's not scheduled to go universal for a while yet. Then there's my one favorite game, SimCity 4. I did download a beta universal binary from Aspyr, just to see if they'd fixed any of the other long-standing bugs in the program (they haven't). SimCity is really the only other place where I've been disappointed in my computer's performance. I think it's more processor bound than Aperture is in this case, but a better video card should certainly help it some. I do also have a few classic programs that I need to access from time to time (namely ArcView), which are pretty processor intense. Thus it doesn't look like taking the plunge to an Intel Mac would be a good idea just yet. Maybe in another year or so.
I did have a chance to play with Aperture on a Mac Pro at the Apple Store a month or so ago. While it wasn't glass smooth with the 10 mp files on the machine, it was certainly a lot better than my computer, just not worth the price of a whole new machine. Does it look like I'm on the right track here, or might there be a different area I can optimize performance?
Thanks

I agree, if you can find a video card, that would help a lot.
On the other hand, You might consider getting a iMac 20" and selling your current machine. I have a iMac 20" with 2 gig of ram and it runs Aperture very well. You can get a deal on one of Apple's Refurbished units too. The 24" has the better video cards and 800FW. But, if money is the issue, I would buy the 20" and upgrade your software. Again, with Aperture, buy the best video card that you can. You will love Photoshop CS3.
I hope this helps.
Kevin Hawkins

Similar Messages

Best way to improve performance?

I'm using a Dual Core Intel Xeon and starting to do video work on it with Final Cut Pro, etc.
I've got 8GB of DDR2 FB-DIMM at 667MHz.
I'm using a Cinema HD display, driven by a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT.
What would be your best advice at improving performance (if there is any). I doubt more RAM would help; not sure if there is anything faster than 667Mhz for this machine; Could a newer video card help rendering speed?
I'm generally very happy with how things work, can't afford a new MacPro, and am simply wondering if I should invest in something more affordable that could give me a slightly better kick?
Many thanks,
Czet

One thing that's always useful is to make sure you've got iStat installed and see how much of your RAM is actually being used because 8Gb is a lot, even for HD but it doesn't rule out a lack of RAM.
The 'biggest' increase in speed I've ever seen on any of my kit was a SSD. I've setup my Mac Pro with 2 x 128Gb SSD in the 2nd optical bay (in a 3.5" RAID 0 caddy) and setup Final Cut Pro to use 2 x 1.5Tb Seagate 7200.4's in software RAID 0 and everything flies. A 256Gb SSD is far more expensive (and slower) than 2 x 128Gb's in a RAID 0 caddy so a no brainer.
Graphics cards always help but in my experience the only place you'll notice significant improvements are Games and software such as Motion/Aperture where you really must have a decent card.

Third-party hardware upgrades to improve performance in AE?

Hey Folks,
Quick question. Does anyone know of any third-party hardware cards that will improve performance in AE CS5? I'm running a MacPro Quad-Core (two processor, 8 core) 3.2Ghz with 16GB RAM, 4TB internal drives on a MacPro Raid Card. Ideally I'd love to get a card that would accelerate Photoshop and Final Cut as well. Does anyone make third-party cards that do that? Thanks,
Justin

Mylenium wrote:
No. Not since 15 years ago (ICE board for Final Effects).
Mylenium
Good lord. I had two--not one, but TWO--of those cool but utterly useless boat anchors.
We were a victim of marketing.
Bad software, unrealistic performance claims, and worthless support from a company that, when starting out, truly thought they had revolutionized the entire world of rendering effects on the NuBus Macintosh.
All that remains of those boards is a pocketful of lovely blue anodized CNC'd heatsinks.
bogiesan

Will genius bar staff look at my older MacBook and recommend upgrades to improve performance?

Yeah, I probably should just call them, but it is 10 PM in Las Vegas and they are closed. My MacBook is slowing down and I read some answers on the community as to what to do. From those, it looks like I need more RAM and a larger hard drive. Also, maybe some backup to storage. I don't know if this is possible on my MacBook, so I have to find out and think the Genius Bar personnel would help. Do they do this stuff?
Thanks.

Yes, they can help. However, Apple charges around 2X what you can buy and install memory for yourself. OWC and Crucial are both good sources. This Apple note tells you how to install memory. You can find a video here on how to install memory too.

Upgraded both computers in the household and found Lion is too disruptive to workflow. Do I turn in the new laptop for a pre-Lion rebuild to keep Snow Leopard, or do I return computer and get upgraded memory to improve performance of existing MacBookPro?

Upgraded both computers in the household and found Lion is too disruptive to workflow.
Do I turn in the new laptop for a pre-Lion rebuild to keep Snow Leopard, or do I return new computer and get upgraded memory to improve performance of existing MacBookPro? I'm mostly still happy with existing MacBookPro, but Aperture doesn't work, the computer can't handle it.
Other possibility is setting up virtual machine with Snow Leopard server software on new computer.
Any opinions on what would allow moving forward with the least hassle and best workflow continuity?

hi,
what year and specs does the MBP have

Which is best method to improve the performance

Hi,
I have one scnerio, to meet this requirement i have two methods
My requirement is to get the data from multiple tables, so i am developing a query based on joins and this query may give approx 80000 rows.
To meet this requirement i have two methods.
I have confusion which is the best method to improve the performance.
Method #1
for i in <query>
loop
end loop;
Here we are retriving row by row(80000 rows) from data base and applying our logic
Method #2
By using the BULKCOLLECT at a time we are getting all the rows(80000 rows) into plsql table.
then loop is based on plsql table
for i in 1..plsqltable.count
loop
end loop;
Here we are retriving row by row(80000 rows) from plsql table instead of going to data base.
Can any body please suggest which is the best to improve the performance

Using BULK COLLECT will give you better performance with a large data set because there will be reduced IO with this method versus the traditional CURSOR FOR LOOP. Database Admin's (DBAs) typically don't like BULK COLLECT because developers tend to forget to limit the number of rows returned by the BULK COLLECT operation so it could use up too much memory. Take a look at DEVELOPER: PL/SQL Practices On BULK COLLECT By Steven Feuerstein for some great tips on using BULK COLLECT. Another good Feuerstein article is: Bulk Processing with BULK COLLECT and FORALL.
As others have mentioned, you should have posted your question in the PL/SQL forum. ;)
Hope this helps,
Craig...

How to preload sound into memory to improve performance?

Hello all
I have an application where it needs to play 4 different short wave files on some events. The wave files are small (less then 1 sec each) so they can be preloaded into memory. But I don't really know how to do that.. This is my current code... Performance is really important here, so the faster users can hear the sounds, the better...
import java.io.*;
import javax.sound.sampled.*;
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
public class PlaySound implements ActionListener
     private Clip clip = null;
     public void play(String name)
          if (clip != null)
               clip.stop();
               clip = null;
          loadClip(name);
          clip.start();
     private void loadClip(String fnm)
          try
               AudioInputStream stream = AudioSystem.getAudioInputStream(new File(fnm + ".wav"));
               AudioFormat format = stream.getFormat();
               DataLine.Info info = new DataLine.Info(Clip.class, format);
               if (!AudioSystem.isLineSupported(info))
                    JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Unsupported sound line", "Warning!", JOptionPane.WARNING_MESSAGE);
               else
                    clip = (Clip) AudioSystem.getLine(info);
                    clip.open(stream);
                    stream.close();
          catch (Exception e)
               JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "loadClip E: " + e.toString(), "Warning!", JOptionPane.WARNING_MESSAGE);
     public static void main(String[] args)
          play("a wav file name");
}     I would appreciate it if someone can point out how I can preload them to improve performance... Thanks in advance!

The message above should be:
OMG, me dumb you smart Florian...
Thank you for your suggestion... It's not the best OR anything close to what I thought it would be, it's certainly one way to do it and better then what I've got now...
Thanks again Florian, I really appreciate it!!
BTW, is there anything that would produce the sound faster then this?
Message was edited by:
BuggyVB

A64 Tweaker and Improving Performance

I noticed a little utility called "A64 Tweaker" being mentioned in an increasing number of posts, so I decided to track down a copy and try it out...basically, it's a memory tweaking tool, and it actually is possible to get a decent (though not earth-shattering by any means) performance boost with it. It also lacks any real documentation as far as I can find, so I decided to make a guide type thing to help out users who would otherwise just not bother with it.
Anyways, first things first, you can get a copy of A64 Tweaker here: http://www.akiba-pc.com/download.php?view.40
Now that that's out of the way, I'll walk through all of the important settings, minus Tcl, Tras, Trcd, and Trp, as these are the typical RAM settings that everyone is always referring to when they go "CL2.5-3-3-7", so information on them is widely available, and everyone knows that for these settings, lower always = better. Note that for each setting, I will list the measured cange in my SiSoft Sandra memory bandwidth score over the default setting. If a setting produces a change of < 10 MB/sec, its effects will be listed as "negligible" (though note that it still adds up, and a setting that has a negligible impact on throughput may still have an important impact on memory latency, which is just as important). As for the rest of the settings (I'll do the important things on the left hand side first, then the things on the right hand side...the things at the bottom are HTT settings that I'm not going to muck with):
Tref - I found this setting to have the largest impact on performance out of all the available settings. In a nutshell, this setting controls how your RAM refreshes are timed...basically, RAM can be thought of as a vast series of leaky buckets (except in the case of RAM, the buckets hold electrons and not water), where a bucket filled beyond a certain point registers as a '1' while a bucket with less than that registers as a '0', so in order for a '1' bucket to stay a '1', it must be periodically refilled (i.e. "refreshed"). The way I understand this setting, the frequency (100 MHz, 133 MHz, etc.) controls how often the refreshes happen, while the time parameter (3.9 microsecs, 1.95 microsecs, etc.) controls how long the refresh cycle lasts (i.e. how long new electrons are pumped into the buckets). This is important because while the RAM is being refreshed, other requests must wait. Therefore, intuitively it would seem that what we want are short, infrequent refreshes (the 100 MHz, 1.95 microsec option). Experimentation almost confirms this, as my sweet spot was 133 MHz, 1.95 microsecs...I don't know why I had better performance with this setting, but I did. Benchmark change from default setting of 166 MHz, 3.9 microsecs: + 50 MB/sec
Trfc - This setting offered the next largest improvement...I'm not sure exactly what this setting controls, but it is doubtless similar to the above setting. Again, lower would seem to be better, but although I was stable down to '12' for the setting, the sweet spot here for my RAM was '18'. Selecting '10' caused a spontaneous reboot. Benchmark change from the default setting of 24: +50 MB/sec
Trtw - This setting specifies how long the system must wait after it reads a value before it tries to overwrite the value. This is necessary due to various technical aspects related to the fact that we run superscalar, multiple-issues CPU's that I don't feel like getting into, but basically, smaller numbers are better here. I was stable at '2', selecting '1' resulted in a spontaneou reboot. Benchmark change from default setting of 4: +10 MB/sec
Twr - This specifies how much delay is applied after a write occurs before the new information can be accessed. Again, lower is better. I could run as low as 2, but didn't see a huge change in benchmark scores as a result. It is also not too likely that this setting affects memory latency in an appreciable way. Benchmark change from default setting of 3: negligible
Trrd - This controls the delay between a row address strobe (RAS) and a seccond row address strobe. Basically, think of memory as a two-dimensional grid...to access a location in a grid, you need both a row and column number. The way memory accesses work is that the system first asserts the column that is wants (the column address strobe, or CAS), and then asserts the row that it wants (row address strobe). Because of a number of factors (prefetching, block addressing, the way data gets laid out in memory), the system will often access multiple rows from the same column at once to improve performance (so you get one CAS, followed by several RAS strobes). I was able to run stably with a setting of 1 for this value, although I didn't get an appreciable increase in throughput. It is likely however that this setting has a significant impact on latency. Benchmark change from default setting of 2: negligible
Trc - I'm not completely sure what this setting controls, although I found it had very little impact on my benchmark score regardless of what values I specified. I would assume that lower is better, and I was stable down to 8 (lower than this caused a spontaneous reboot), and I was also stable at the max possible setting. It is possible that this setting has an effect on memory latency even though it doesn't seem to impact throughput. Benchmark change from default setting of 12: negligible
Dynamic Idle Cycle Counter - I'm not sure what this is, and although it sounds like a good thing, I actually post a better score when running with it disabled. No impact on stability either way. Benchmark change from default setting of enabled: +10 MB/sec
Idle Cycle Limit - Again, not sure exactly what this is, but testing showed that both extremely high and extremely low settings degrade performance by about 20 MB/sec. Values in the middle offer the best performance. I settled on 32 clks as my optimal setting, although the difference was fairly minimal over the default setting. This setting had no impact on stability. Benchmark change from default setting of 16 clks: negligible
Read Preamble - As I understand it, this is basically how much of a "grace period" is given to the RAM when a read is asserted before the results are expected. As such, lower values should offer better performance. I was stable down to 3.5 ns, lower than that and I would get freezes/crashes. This did not change my benchmark scores much, though in theory it should have a significant impact on latency. Benchmark change from default setting of 6.0 ns: negligible
Read Write Queue Bypass - Not sure what it does, although there are slight performance increases as the value gets higher. I was stable at 16x, though the change over the 8x default was small. It is possible, though I think unlikely, that this improves latency as well. Benchmark change from default setting of 8x: negligible
Bypass Max - Again not sure what this does, but as with the above setting, higher values perform slightly better. Again I feel that it is possible, though not likely, that this improves latency as well. I was stable at the max of 7x. Benchmark change from the default setting of 4x: negligible
Asynch latency - A complete mystery. Trying to run *any* setting other than default results in a spontaneous reboot for me. No idea how it affects anything, though presumably lower would be better, if you can select lower values without crashing.
...and there you have it. With the tweaks mentioned above, I was able to gain +160 MB/sec on my Sandra score, +50 on my PCMark score, and +400 on my 3dMark 2001 SE score. Like I said, not earth-shattering, but a solid performance boost, and it's free to boot. Settings what I felt had no use in tweaking the RAM for added performance, or which are self-explanatory, have been left out. The above tests were performed on Corsair XMS PC4000 RAM @ 264 MHz, CL2.5-3-4-6 1T.

Quote
Hm...I wonder which one is telling the truth, the BIOS or A64 tweaker.
I've wondered this myself. From my understanding it the next logic step from the WCREDIT programs. I understand how clock gen can misreport frequency because it's probably not measuring frequency itself but rather a mathmatical representation of a few numbers it's gathered and one clk frequency(HTT maybe?), and the non supported dividers messes up the math...but I think the tweaker just extracts hex values strait from the registers and displays in "English", I mean it could be wrong, but seeing how I watch the BIOS on The SLI Plat change the memory timings in the POST screen to values other then SPD when it Auto with agressive timings in disabled, I actually want to side with the A64 tweaker in this case.
Hey anyone know what Tref in A64 relates to in the BIOS. i.e 200 1.95us = what in the BIOS. 1x4028, 1x4000, I'm just making up numbers here but it's different then 200 1.95, last time I searched I didn't find anything. Well I found ALOT but not waht I wanted..

Will upgrading ram improve speed in Mac and windows (VMware fusion)?

I Am using VMware fusion for music production and that program requires a lot of workspace. I have a MacBook Pro 4gb ram and when I turn VMware on it goes to 2 gb ram in Mac and 2 gb ram in windows. My Mac speed is normal when VMware fusion is turned off but when I turn it on my Mac is very slow. Will upgrading ram improve speed in mac and also in windows (windows is also very slow)
Btw my english isn't very good

Adding RAM only makes it possible to run more programs concurrently. It doesn't speed up the computer nor make games run faster. What it can do is prevent the system from having to use disk-based VM when it runs out of RAM because you are trying to run too many applications concurrently or using applications that are extremely RAM hungry. It will improve the performance of applications that run mostly in RAM or when loading programs.
In your case it will most likely help. You should plan on at least 8 GBs or more, depending upon what your model supports.

What is the best way to improve export time in PreE10?

I import the mts files directly from a sd card or HDD using PreE10's importer. Next, I add titles, video/audio fades, and transitions then export to DVD. Right now, my projects are 60min+~4min black video in length and exported directly from PreE10 as SD on a DVD. It takes on average 94min to finish this task.
What can I do/upgrade to speed up this process?
Computer specs:
Windows 7 Professional
-Intel Core i7-3770
8GB DDR3 RAM
SanDisk 128 SSD (OS+Programs)
WD Blue 1TB 7200RPM HDD (All media)
GTX 650 1GB
Would buying another SSD help? Would upgrading my processor dramatically improve the time? Or should invest in Premiere Pro and upgrading GPU?
I would like to stay using PreE10, but If there is nothing more that can be done to dramatically improve time, I would consider going to the next level with Premiere Pro.

You tell P-Elements to burn a DVD folder to your hard drive (look at the folder structure on a "Hollywood" DVD to see if you got it right) and then you have Imgburn write that folder to a DVD
-CS6 Trial Downloads http://forums.adobe.com/message/5649304
-and http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1315644
Here Win7 Tuning Help & Tips & Utilities
Windows Indexing is BAD http://forums.adobe.com/thread/676303
While in Properties, be sure you have drive indexing set OFF
-for the drive, and for all directories, to improve performance
http://www.decrap.org/ remove bloatware
http://support.microsoft.com/fixit/
Record Steps http://blog.raxco.com/2012/05/18/windows-7-tool-records-your-pc-problems/
Free System Optimizer http://www.iobit.com/advancedsystemcareper.html
Registry Cleaners http://windowssecrets.com/newsletter/putting-registry-system-cleanup-apps-to-the-test/
Be sure you have the default hard drive indexing OFF for all drives and folders!!!
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/220753/windows_7_godmode_tips_tricks_tweaks. html
Temp/Cookie Cleaner http://www.mixesoft.com/
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/789809
Win7 Toolbar http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/110210
More Win7 Tips http://windowssecrets.com/comp/110127
Utilities http://windowssecrets.com/comp/110106 (Startup Solutions)
Win7 Help http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/category/w7itpro/
Win7 Configuration Article http://windowssecrets.com:80/comp/100218
Win7 Monitor http://windowssecrets.com:80/comp/100304
Win7 Optimizing http://www.blackviper.com/Windows_7/servicecfg.htm
Win7 Adobe Notes http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/508/cpsid_50853.html#tech
Win7 Adobe Update Server Problem http://forums.adobe.com/thread/586346
An Adobe Win7 FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/thread/511916
More Win7 Tips/FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/thread/513640
Processes http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
Compatibility http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Default.aspx
Win7 God Mode http://forums.adobe.com/thread/595255
CS5 Install Error http://forums.adobe.com/thread/629281
CS5 Help Problem http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/842/cpsid_84215.html
Win7 and Firewire http://forums.adobe.com/thread/521842
http://lifehacker.com/5634978/top-10-things-to-do-with-a-new-windows-7-system
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/05/29/7-free-windows-7-tweaking-utilities/
Win7 64bit Crashing and "a" fix http://forums.adobe.com/thread/580435
http://prodesigntools.com/if-any-problems-downloading-or-installing-cs5.html
Harm's Tools http://forums.adobe.com/thread/504907
Also http://www.tune-up.com/products/tuneup-utilities/
Also http://personal.inet.fi/business/toniarts/ecleane.htm
Optimizing Hard Drive http://www.video2brain.com/en/videos-5353.htm
-and http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1083797
Win7 Reinstall http://windowssecrets.com/newsletter/win7s-no-reformat-nondestructive-reinstall/
Anti-Malware Tools http://windowssecrets.com/newsletter/the-advanced-system-recover-toolkit/
Repair AVI http://forums.adobe.com/thread/888268
Tune Vista & Win7 64bit http://forums.adobe.com/thread/436139
GPU Monitor http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2092/TechPowerUp_GPU-Z_v0.5.8.html
http://windowssecrets.com/newsletter/clean-install-windows-7-from-the-upgrade-disc/
God Mode for Win7 and Win8
Create a new folder on your Win 7 desktop.
Copy and paste this name to the folder:
GodMode.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}

Need to improve Performance of select...endselect query

Hi experts,
I have a query in my program like below with inner join of 3 tables.
In my program used select....endselect   again inside this select...endselect statements used..
While executing in production taking lot of time to fetch records. Can anyone suggest to improve performance of below query urgently...
Greatly appreciated ur help...
SELECT MVKEDWERK MVKEMATNR MVKEVKORG MVKEVTWEG MARA~MATNR
       MARAMTART ZM012MTART ZM012ZLIND ZM012ZPRICEREF
INTO (MVKE-DWERK , MVKE-MATNR , MVKE-VKORG , MVKE-VTWEG , MARA-MATNR
     , MARA-MTART , ZM012-MTART , ZM012-ZLIND , ZM012-ZPRICEREF )
FROM ( MVKE
       INNER JOIN MARA
       ON MARAMATNR = MVKEMATNR
       INNER JOIN ZM012
       ON ZM012MTART = MARAMTART )
       WHERE MVKE~DWERK IN SP$00004
         AND MVKE~MATNR IN SP$00001
         AND MVKE~VKORG IN SP$00002
         AND MVKE~VTWEG IN SP$00003
         AND MARA~MTART IN SP$00005
         AND ZM012~ZLIND IN SP$00006
         AND ZM012~ZPRICEREF IN SP$00007.
%DBACC = %DBACC - 1.
IF %DBACC = 0.
    STOP.
ENDIF.
CHECK SP$00005.
CHECK SP$00004.
CHECK SP$00001.
CHECK SP$00002.
CHECK SP$00003.
CHECK SP$00006.
CHECK SP$00007.
clear Check_PR00.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'PR00'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_PR00 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00008.
clear Check_ZPR0.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZPR0'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00009.
clear ZFMP.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZFMP'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
ZFMP = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00010.
clear mastercost.
clear ZDCF.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZDCF'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
ZDCF = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00011.
clear masterprice.
clear Standardcost.
select * from mbew
where matnr = mvke-matnr
and bwkey = mvke-dwerk.
Standardcost = mbew-stprs.
mastercost = MBEW-BWPRH.
masterprice = mBEW-BWPH1.
endselect.
ADD 1 TO %COUNT-MVKE.
%LINR-MVKE = '01'.
EXTRACT %FG01.
%EXT-MVKE01 = 'X'.
    EXTRACT %FGWRMVKE01.
ENDSELECT.
best rgds..
hari..

Hi there.
Some advices:
- why going to MVKE first and MARA then? You will find n rows in MVKE for 1 matnr, and then go n times to the same record in MARA. Do the oposite, i.e, go first to MARA (1 time per matnr) and then to MVKE.
- avoid select *, you will save time.
- use trace or measure performance in tcodes ST05 and SM30.
- replace:
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
by
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
exit.
endselect.
Here, if I understood, you only need to atribute kbetr value to Check_ZPR0 if selecting anything (don't need the IF because if enters in select, subrc always equal to 0, and also don't need to do it several times from same a004-knumh - reason for the EXIT.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
Valter Oliveira.
Edited by: Valter Oliveira on Jun 5, 2008 3:16 PM

Best practices for maximum performance of C# CLR scalar UDF in View

Can anyone give some tips for best performance of a C# CLR UDF on SQL 2008 R2 or SQL 2012? Including maximizing the performance of the transition to CLR. I am using it in a View. E.g.,
create myview (id, name, address) as select id, dbo.MyUDF(name), address from mytable;
In particular:
Are there any specific C# build options or source code options? The MyUDF prototype is defined as:
[Microsoft.SqlServer.Server.SqlFunction()]
public static SqlString MyUDF(SqlString data)
Is it better to build the DLL for target x64 or Any CPU?
Does the use of a specific Target Framework have any effect? (e.g., DotNet 3.5 versus DotNet 4.0 or 4.5)
Is there any way to inform SQL Server that the UDF is safe for Parallelism?
I read somewhere that using the InProc ado.net Provider might improve performance but I don't see any mention of a Provider in the documentation for Create Assembly.
Thanks for any tips.
Neil Weicher
www.netlib.com

* Does the use of a specific Target Framework have any effect? (e.g., DotNet 3.5 versus DotNet 4.0 or 4.5)
Yes, if you select 4.0 or higher, the assembly will not load on SQL 2008 R2.
* Is there any way to inform SQL Server that the UDF is safe for Parallelism?
User-defined functions (save for inline) in general is a good recipe if you want to make sure that there is no parallelism. That is, the answer to your question is no, and if there is, SQL Server does not care.
* I read somewhere that using the InProc ado.net Provider might improve performance but I don't see any mention of a Provider in the documentation for Create Assembly.
Not sure what you mean here, but if you mean the context connection, this is in your code, and have nothing to do with what you put in CREATE ASSEMBLY. Except that, if you connect by some other means than the context connection, the assembly needs to have
EXTERNAL_ACCESS_PERMISSION. But are you really doing data access from your UDF?
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, [email protected]

Using Lightroom and Aperture, will a new ATI 5770/5870 vs. GT 120 improve performance?

I have a MP (2009, 3.3 Nehalem Quad and 16GB RAM) and wanted to improve performance in APERTURE (see clock wheel processing all the time) with edits, also using Lightroom, and sometimes CS5.
Anyone with experience that can say upgrading from the GT120 would see a difference and how much approximately?
Next, do I need to buy the 5870 or can I get the 5770 to work?
I am assuming I have to remove the GT120 for the new card to fit?
Thanks

Terrible marketing. ALL ATI 5xxx work in ALL Mac Pro models. With 10.6.5 and later.
It really should be yours to just check AMD and search out reviews that compare these to others. You didn't look at the specs of each or Barefeats? He has half a dozen benchmark tests, but the GT120 doesn't even show up or in the running on most.
From AMD 5870 shows 2x the units -
TeraScale 2 Unified Processing Architecture
1600 Stream Processing Units
80 Texture Units
128 Z/Stencil ROP Units
32 Color ROP Units
ATI Radeon™ HD 5870 graphics
That should hold up well.
Some are on the fence or don't want to pay $$
All they or you (and you've been around for more than a day!) is go to Apple Store:
ATI Radeon HD 5870 Graphics Upgrade Kit for Mac Pro (Mid 2010 or Early 2009)
ATI Radeon HD 5870 Upgrade

Brush Lag? - Here are OpenGL settings that improve performance

For anyone having horrible Brush lag, please try the following settings and report your findings in this thread.
After much configuring and comparing CS4 vs CS3, I found that these settings do improve CS4's brush lag significantly. CS3 is still faster, but these settings made CS4 brush strokes a lot more responsive.
Please try these settings and share your experiences.
NOTE: these do not improve clone tool performance, the best way to improve clone performance right now seems to be to turn off the clone tools overlay feature.
Perhaps Adam or Chris from Adobe could explain what is happening here. The most significant option that improved performance appears to be the "Use for Image Display - OFF". I have no idea what this feature does or does not do but it does seem to be the biggest performance hit. The next most influential setting seems to be "3D Interaction Acceleration - OFF"
Set the following settings in Photoshop CS4 Preferences:
OpenGL - ON
Vsync - OFF
3D Interaction Acceleration - OFF
Force Bilinear Interpolation - OFF
Advanced Drawing - ON
Use for Image Display - OFF
Color Matching - ON

Hi guys,
As I am having very little problems with my system I though I should post my specs and settings for comparison reasons.
System - Asus p5Q deluxe,
Intel quad 9650 3ghz,
16gb pc6400 800Mhz ram,
loads of drives ( system drive on 10K 74gb Raptor, Vista partition on fast 500gb drive, Ps scratch on an another fast 500gb drive, the rest are storage/bk-ups ),
Gainward 8800GTS 640mb GPU,
30ins monitor @2560x1600 and a 24ins 1920x1200,
Wacom tablet.
PS CS4 x64bit
Vista x64
All latest drivers
No Antivirus. Index and superfetch is ON, Defender is ON
No internet connection except for updates
No faffing around with vista processes
Wacom Virtual HID and Wacom Mouse Monitor are disabled
nVidia GPU set to default settings
On this system I am able to produce massive images, the last major size was 150x600cm@200ppi and the brushes are smooth until they increased to around 700+ pixels then there is a slight lag of around 1 second if I draw fast, if I take it slow then there's no lag. All UI is snappy.
I have the following settings in Photoshop CS4 Preferences:
Actual Ram: 14710MB
Set to use (87%) :12790MB
Scratch Disk
on a separate fast 500gb - to become a 80gb ssd soon
History state: 50
Cache: 8
OpenGL - ON
Vsync - OFF
3D Interaction Acceleration - OFF
Force Bilinear Interpolation - OFF
Advanced Drawing - ON
Use for Image Display - ON
Color Matching - ON
I hope this helps in some way too...
EDIT: I should also add that I Defrag all my drives with a third party defrag software every night due to the large image files.

RE: Need help to improve performance!!

Hi Experts,
There is an standard SAP tcode FPREPT which is to re-print a receipt. The execution of the Query time takes 5+ minutes.
Can anybody suggest me the best way to improve this and if hlp me with any SAP note available for the same.
vishal

Hi,
Check this note
Note 607651 - FPREPT/FPY1: Performance for receipt number assignment
It is a old one for release 471 (FI-CA)
What is your release ?
Regards

Best Upgrade to Improve Performance?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for