Full GC taking longer time

hi Team,
We are running SLD on separate hardware with Windows 2003. But since couple of months we been observing that 'full GC taking longer time' then it used to be. So wondering what are the possible parameters, configuration items that i need to look back to find tune this issue.
any good reference docs related to find tuning the GC is much appriciated.
Thanks
Sekhar

Hi ,
Hope this might help.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/i-gctroub/
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/0596003773/javapt2-CHP-3-SECT-4#X2ludGVybmFsX1NlY3Rpb25Db250ZW50P3htbGlkPTA1OTYwMDM3NzMvamF2YXB0Mi1DSFAtMy1TRUNULTE=
http://java.sun.com/docs/hotspot/gc5.0/gc_tuning_5.html
Also check out the pdfs
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/7fdca26e-0601-0010-369d-b3fc87d3a2d9
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/22baa590-0201-0010-26a3-f1cfa2469973
Rgds
joel

Similar Messages

SSRS Reports taking long time to load

Hello,
Problem : SSRS Reports taking long time to load
My System environment : Visual Studio 2008 SP1 and SQL Server 2008 R2
Production Environment : Visual Studio 2008 SP1 and SQL Server 2008 R2
I have created a Parameterized report (6 parameters), it will fetch data from 1 table. table has 1 year and 6 months data,      I am selecting parameters for only 1 month (about 2500 records). It is taking almost 2 minutes and 30 seconds
to load the report.
This report running efficiently in my system (report load takes only 5 to 6 seconds) but in
production it is taking 2 minutes 30 seconds.
I have checked the Execution log from production so I found the timing for
Data retrieval (approx~)    Processing (approx~)           Rendering (approx~)
10 second                                  15 sec
        2 mins and 5 sec.
But Confusing point is that , if I run the same report at different time overall output time is same (approx) 2 min 30 sec but
Data retrieval (approx~)       Processing (approx~)                Rendering (approx~)
more than 1 min                            15 sec
more than 1 min
so 1 question why timings are different ?
My doubts are
1) If query(procedure to retrieve the data) is the problem then it should take more time always,
2) If Report structure is problem then rendering will also take same time (long time)
for this (2nd point) I checked on blog that Rendering depends on environment structure e.g. Network bandwidth, RAM, CPU Usage , Number of users accessing same report at a time.
So I did testing of report when no other user working on any report But failed (same result output is 2 min 30 sec)
From network team I got the result is that there is no issue or overload in CPU usage or RAM also No issue in Network bandwidth.
Production Database Server and Report server are different (but in same network).
I checked that database server the SQL Server is using almost Full RAM (23 GB out of 24 GB)
I tried to allocate the memory to less amount up to 2GB (Trial solution I got from Blogs) but this on also failed.
one hint I got from colleague that , change the allocated memory setting from static memory to dynamic to SQL Server
(I guess above point is the same) I could not find that option Static and Dynamic memory setting.
I did below steps
Connected to SQL Server Instance
Right click on Instance go to properties, Go to Memory Tab
I found three options 1) Server Memory   2) Other memory   3) Section for "Configured values and Running values"
Then I tried to reduce Maximum Server memory up to 2 GB (As mentioned above)
All trials failed, this issue I could not find the roots for this issue.
Can anyone please help (it's bit urgent).

Hi UdayKGR,
According to your description, your report takes too long to load on your production environment. Right?
In this scenario, since the report runs quickly in developing environment, we initially think it supposed to be the issue on data retrieval. However, based on the information in execution log, it takes longest time on rendering part. So we suggest you optimize
the report itself to reduce the time for rendering. Please refer to the link below:
My report takes too long to render
Here is another article about overall performance optimization for Reporting Services:
Reporting Services Performance and Optimization
If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
Best Regards,
Simon Hou

Simple query is taking long time

Hi Experts,
The below query is taking long time.
[code]SELECT   FS.*
FROM   ORL.FAX_STAGE FS
         INNER JOIN
               ORL.FAX_SOURCE FSRC
            INNER JOIN
               GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING GBM
            ON GBM.BU_ID = FSRC.BUID
         ON UPPER (FSRC.FAX_NUMBER) = UPPER (FS.DESTINATION)
WHERE       FSRC.IS_DELETED = 'N'
         AND GBM.BU_ID IS NOT NULL
         AND UPPER (FS.FAX_STATUS) ='COMPLETED';[/code]
this query is returning 1645457 records.
[code]PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation           | Name                   | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)|
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |                        |   625K|   341M| 45113   (1)|
|   1 | HASH JOIN          |                        |   625K|   341M| 45113   (1)|
|   2 |   NESTED LOOPS      |                        |   611 | 14664 |    22   (0)|
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| FAX_SOURCE             | 2290 | 48090 |    22   (0)|
|   4 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN | GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING_BUID |     1 |     3 |     0   (0)|
|   5 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | FAX_STAGE              | 2324K| 1214M| 45076   (1)|
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Note
   - 'PLAN_TABLE' is old version
15 rows selected.[/code]
The distinct number of records in each table.
[code]SELECT FAX_STATUS,count(*)
FROM fax_STAGE
GROUP BY FAX_STATUS;
FAX_STATUS    COUNT(*)
BROKEN          10
Broken - New    9
Completed    2324493
New             20
SELECT is_deleted,COUNT(*)
FROM FAX_SOURCE
GROUP BY IS_DELETED;
IS_DELETED COUNT(*)
N         2290
Y         78[/code]
Total number of records in each table.
[code]SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ORL.FAX_SOURCE FSRC-- 2368
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ORL.FAX_STAGE--2324532
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM APPS_GLOBAL.GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING--9
[/code]
To improve the performance of this query I have created the following indexes.
[code]Functional based index on UPPER (FSRC.FAX_NUMBER) ,UPPER (FS.DESTINATION) and UPPER (FS.FAX_STATUS).
Bitmap index on FSRC.IS_DELETED.
Normal Index on GBM.BU_ID and FSRC.BUID.
[/code]
But still the performance is bad for this query.
What can I do apart from this to improve the performance of this query.
Please help me .
Thanks in advance.

<I have created the following indexes.
CREATE INDEX ORL.IDX_DESTINATION_RAM ON ORL.FAX_STAGE(UPPER("DESTINATION"))
CREATE INDEX ORL.IDX_FAX_STATUS_RAM ON ORL.FAX_STAGE(LOWER("FAX_STATUS"))
CREATE INDEX ORL.IDX_UPPER_FAX_STATUS_RAM ON ORL.FAX_STAGE(UPPER("FAX_STATUS"))
CREATE INDEX ORL.IDX_BUID_RAM ON ORL.FAX_SOURCE(BUID)
CREATE INDEX ORL.IDX_FAX_NUMBER_RAM ON ORL.FAX_SOURCE(UPPER("FAX_NUMBER"))
CREATE BITMAP INDEX ORL.IDX_IS_DELETED_RAM ON ORL.FAX_SOURCE(IS_DELETED)
After creating the following indexes performance got improved.
But our DBA said that new BITMAP index at FAX_SOURCE table (ORL.IDX_IS_DELETED_RAM) can cause locks
on multiple rows if IS_DELETED column is in use. Please proceed with detailed tests.
I am sending the explain plan before creating indexes and after indexes has been created.
SELECT FS.*
FROM ORL.FAX_STAGE FS
                INNER JOIN
                ORL.FAX_SOURCE FSRC
              INNER JOIN
                  GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING GBM
                ON GBM.BU_ID = FSRC.BUID
            ON UPPER (FSRC.FAX_NUMBER) = UPPER (FS.DESTINATION)
WHERE      FSRC.IS_DELETED = 'N'
          AND GBM.BU_ID IS NOT NULL
          AND UPPER (FS.FAX_STATUS) =:B1;
--OLD without indexes
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 3076973749
| Id | Operation          | Name                  | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time    |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |                        | 141K|    85M| 45130 (1)| 00:09:02 |
|* 1 | HASH JOIN          |                        | 141K|    85M| 45130 (1)| 00:09:02 |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS      |                        | 611 | 18330 |    22 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| FAX_SOURCE            | 2290 | 59540 |    22 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN | GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING_BUID |    1 |    4 |    0 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | FAX_STAGE              | 23245 |    13M| 45106 (1)| 00:09:02 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - access(UPPER("FSRC"."FAX_NUMBER")=UPPER("FS"."DESTINATION"))
3 - filter("FSRC"."IS_DELETED"='N')
4 - access("GBM"."BU_ID"="FSRC"."BUID")
      filter("GBM"."BU_ID" IS NOT NULL)
5 - filter(UPPER("FS"."FAX_STATUS")=SYS_OP_C2C(:B1))
21 rows selected.
--NEW with indexes.
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 665032407
| Id | Operation                        | Name                    | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time    |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT                |                          | 5995 | 3986K| 3117 (1)| 00:00:38 |
|* 1 | HASH JOIN                      |                          | 5995 | 3986K| 3117 (1)| 00:00:38 |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS                  |                          | 611 | 47658 |    20 (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 |    VIEW                          | index$_join$_002        | 2290 | 165K|    20 (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |    HASH JOIN                    |                          |      |      |            |      |
|* 5 |      HASH JOIN                  |                          |      |      |            |      |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 6 |      BITMAP CONVERSION TO ROWIDS|                          | 2290 | 165K|    1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 |        BITMAP INDEX SINGLE VALUE | IDX_IS_DELETED_RAM      |      |      |            |      |
| 8 |      INDEX FAST FULL SCAN      | IDX_BUID_RAM            | 2290 | 165K|    8 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 9 |      INDEX FAST FULL SCAN        | IDX_FAX_NUMBER_RAM      | 2290 | 165K|    14 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 10 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN              | GLOBAL_BU_MAPPING_BUID |    1 |    4 |    0 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 11 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID    | FAX_STAGE                | 23245 |    13M| 3096 (1)| 00:00:38 |
|* 12 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN              | IDX_UPPER_FAX_STATUS_RAM | 9298 |      | 2434 (1)| 00:00:30 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
1 - access(UPPER("DESTINATION")="FSRC"."SYS_NC00035$")
3 - filter("FSRC"."IS_DELETED"='N')
4 - access(ROWID=ROWID)
5 - access(ROWID=ROWID)
7 - access("FSRC"."IS_DELETED"='N')
10 - access("GBM"."BU_ID"="FSRC"."BUID")
      filter("GBM"."BU_ID" IS NOT NULL)
12 - access(UPPER("FAX_STATUS")=SYS_OP_C2C(:B1))
31 rows selected
Please confirm on the DBA comment.Is this bitmap index locks rows in my case.
Thanks.>

Queries taking long time to run

Hi BW Folks,
I am working on virtual cube 0bcs_vc10 for bcs(business consolidation) the base cube is 0bcs_c10. We compressed and partitioned the base cube. The queries which i developed are running fine and are in production.
Now when a new req came for some more queries after developing them and running in DEv they are taking 20 to 25 mins to run.
Suprisingly the queries which are running in production they are also taking long time to run, we havent disturbed the performance tuning process we did earlier .
Can any one of share their experience in how to tackle this. Will assign full points
THanks

Hi Nick,
Do you have a lot of navigational attributes? That could be slowing you down. Also, if it's going too slow, try caching and pre-calculation (pre-loads the cache). Although I'm not sure if this will work with a Virtual Cube. By their nature they will be much slower than a physical cube.....so worst case scenario for me would be to load the VC data into a regular cube. If the query is still slow, then at least you know it's a query issue and not the VC.
Brian

Query taking long time for EXTRACTING the data more than 24 hours

Hi ,
Query taking long time for EXTRACTING the data more than 24 hours please find the query and explain plan details below even indexes avilable on table's goe's to FULL TABLE SCAN. please suggest me.......
SQL> explain plan for select a.account_id,round(a.account_balance,2) account_balance,
2 nvl(ah.invoice_id,ah.adjustment_id) transaction_id,
to_char(ah.effective_start_date,'DD-MON-YYYY') transaction_date,
to_char(nvl(i.payment_due_date,
to_date('30-12-9999','dd-mm-yyyy')),'DD-MON-YYYY')
due_date, ah.current_balance-ah.previous_balance amount,
decode(ah.invoice_id,null,'A','I') transaction_type
3 4 5 6 7 8 from account a,account_history ah,invoice i_+
where a.account_id=ah.account_id
and a.account_type_id=1000002
and round(a.account_balance,2) > 0
and (ah.invoice_id is not null or ah.adjustment_id is not null)
and ah.CURRENT_BALANCE > ah.previous_balance
and ah.invoice_id=i.invoice_id(+)
AND a.account_balance > 0
order by a.account_id,ah.effective_start_date desc; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Explained.
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)|
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 544K| 30M| | 693K (20)|
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 544K| 30M| 75M| 693K (20)|
|* 2 | HASH JOIN | | 544K| 30M| | 689K (20)|
|* 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | ACCOUNT | 20080 | 294K| | 6220 (18)|
|* 4 | HASH JOIN OUTER | | 131M| 5532M| 5155M| 678K (20)|
|* 5 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| ACCOUNT_HISTORY | 131M| 3646M| | 197K (25)|
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| INVOICE | 262M| 3758M| | 306K (18)|
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - access("A"."ACCOUNT_ID"="AH"."ACCOUNT_ID")
3 - filter("A"."ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID"=1000002 AND "A"."ACCOUNT_BALANCE">0 AND
ROUND("A"."ACCOUNT_BALANCE",2)>0)
4 - access("AH"."INVOICE_ID"="I"."INVOICE_ID"(+))
5 - filter("AH"."CURRENT_BALANCE">"AH"."PREVIOUS_BALANCE" AND ("AH"."INVOICE_ID"
IS NOT NULL OR "AH"."ADJUSTMENT_ID" IS NOT NULL))
22 rows selected.
Index Details:+_
SQL> select INDEX_OWNER,INDEX_NAME,COLUMN_NAME,TABLE_NAME from dba_ind_columns where
2 table_name in ('INVOICE','ACCOUNT','ACCOUNT_HISTORY') order by 4;
INDEX_OWNER INDEX_NAME COLUMN_NAME TABLE_NAME
OPS$SVM_SRV4 P_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT CUSTOMER_NODE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_ACCOUNT_TYPE ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_INVOICE INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_PREVIOUS_INVOICE PREVIOUS_INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME_ID ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME_ID ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_LAST_MODIFIED_ACCOUNT LAST_MODIFIED ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_INVOICE_ACCOUNT INVOICE_ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ACCOUNT SEQNR ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_INVOICE INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADINV INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA CURRENT_BALANCE ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_LMOD LAST_MODIFIED ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADINV ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_PAYMENT PAYMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_APPLIED_DT APPLIED_DATE ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 P_INVOICE INVOICE_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE CUSTOMER_INVOICE_STR INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_LAST_MODIFIED_INVOICE LAST_MODIFIED INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE_ACCOUNT BILL_RUN_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_BILL_RUN BILL_RUN_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_INVOICE_TYPE INVOICE_TYPE_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_CUSTOMER_NODE CUSTOMER_NODE_ID INVOICE
32 rows selected.
Regards,
Bathula
Oracle-DBA

I have some suggestions. But first, you realize that you have some redundant indexes, right? You have an index on account(account_name) and also account(account_name, account_id), and also account_history(invoice_id) and account_history(invoice_id, adjustment_id). No matter, I will suggest some new composite indexes.
Also, you do not need two lines for these conditions:
and round(a.account_balance, 2) > 0
AND a.account_balance > 0
You can just use: and a.account_balance >= 0.005
So the formatted query isselect a.account_id,
       round(a.account_balance, 2) account_balance,
       nvl(ah.invoice_id, ah.adjustment_id) transaction_id,
       to_char(ah.effective_start_date, 'DD-MON-YYYY') transaction_date,
       to_char(nvl(i.payment_due_date, to_date('30-12-9999', 'dd-mm-yyyy')),
               'DD-MON-YYYY') due_date,
       ah.current_balance - ah.previous_balance amount,
       decode(ah.invoice_id, null, 'A', 'I') transaction_type
from account a, account_history ah, invoice i
where a.account_id = ah.account_id
   and a.account_type_id = 1000002
   and (ah.invoice_id is not null or ah.adjustment_id is not null)
   and ah.CURRENT_BALANCE > ah.previous_balance
   and ah.invoice_id = i.invoice_id(+)
   AND a.account_balance >= .005
order by a.account_id, ah.effective_start_date desc;You will probably want to select:
1. From ACCOUNT first (your smaller table), for which you supply a literal on account_type_id. That should limit the accounts retrieved from ACCOUNT_HISTORY
2. From ACCOUNT_HISTORY. We want to limit the records as much as possible on this table because of the outer join.
3. INVOICE we want to access last because it seems to be least restricted, it is the biggest, and it has the outer join condition so it will manufacture rows to match as many rows as come back from account_history.
Try the query above after creating the following composite indexes. The order of the columns is important:create index account_composite_i on account(account_type_id, account_balance, account_id);
create index acct_history_comp_i on account_history(account_id, invoice_id, adjustment_id, current_balance, previous_balance, effective_start_date);
create index invoice_composite_i on invoice(invoice_id, payment_due_date);All the columns used in the where clause will be indexed, in a logical order suited to the needs of the query. Plus each selected column is indexed as well so that we should not need to touch the tables at all to satisfy the query.
Try the query after creating these indexes.
A final suggestion is to try larger sort and hash area sizes and a manual workarea policy.alter session set workarea_size_policy = manual;
alter session set sort_area_size = 2147483647;
alter session set hash_area_size = 2147483647;

Why oracle text index column taking long time

why oracle text index column is taking long time to return result.I created text index on a column if I run the query on a single table result is very fast.If I join table with other table (10 records only )
it is taking long time but in explain plan it is searching by index only.
I created this index for searching a varchar2 column,the data is comma seperated values like ( UK,US,IT,BR) and the table having records 20 lakhs.Normally if I query with like operater
( like '%US%' ) it is taking full table scan because I am using '%' both sides. Please help me on this regard how to search the data with less time. Here is may sample code and explain plan.
SQL*Plus: Release 9.2.0.1.0 - Production on Wed Jan 28 16:54:22 2009
Copyright (c) 1982, 2002, Oracle Corporation. All rights reserved.
Connected to:
Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
With the Partitioning, OLAP and Oracle Data Mining options
JServer Release 9.2.0.1.0 - Production
SQL> set timing on
SQL> set linesize 180
SQL> explain plan for SELECT T.esongid FROM (SELECT A.ESONGID FROM wcmedeco.EDECO_ESONGS_TERR_CTRY
A WHERE CONTAINS(A.TERR_CTRY_NAMES,'US')>0
2 GROUP BY A.ESONGID)K,T
3 WHERE K.ESONGID=T.ESONGID;
Explained.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.01
SQL> select *from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation                      | Name                   | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |                         |     1 |    26 |     4 |
|   1 | NESTED LOOPS                  |                         |     1 |    26 |     4 |
|   2 |   VIEW                         |                         |     1 |    13 |     4 |
|   3 |    SORT GROUP BY               |                         |     1 |    89 |     4 |
|   4 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| EDECO_ESONGS_TERR_CTRY |     1 |    89 |     2 |
|   5 |      DOMAIN INDEX              | IDX_TERR_CTRY_NAMES     |       |       |     0 |
|   6 |   INDEX RANGE SCAN             | IDX_ESONGID_T           |     1 |    13 |     1 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Note: cpu costing is off, 'PLAN_TABLE' is old version
14 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.00
SQL> Regards,
Rajasekhar

You have not formatted your code properly so we cannot see the query you're executing. Please put some line breaks in.
Secondly, how fresh are the statistics on those tables? Are you really returning one record out of twenty million?
Cheers, APC
blog: http://radiofreetooting.blogspot.com

Connecting to the database taking long time to connect database server

Hi
When I execute procedure i am getting the below message at bottom of the Oracle SQL Developer
"Connecting to the database"
it is taking more than 10 min plz guide

Hi
have you installed a normal Oracle Client also on your Host? normal Oracle Client
Did you connect with host:port:sid or with a Oracle Naming Service? through TNS Service
Can you test tnsping <alias> yes, It is working fine
Did other user have the same problem? yes
Did you connect through WAN or LAN connection? LAN (Intranet)
Can you tell more about you client/database setup?
Database setup:
OS: Window 2008 server
version: 11.1.0
Client: 11.1.0
OS: Window 2008 server
Now I am not able to execute single select query which table contains 6 records and 15 columns it is taking long time I have waited 30 min still no resutls
only one table is behaving like this remaining is working fine
Edited by: user9235224 on Oct 6, 2012 7:06 PM

The ODS activation is taking long time

Hi,
We are on SAP NetWeaver BI 701 (Support Package 5).
We create a Z ODS, it will contain a lot of data (180.000.000 month-end) and we want to generate specific reports about it.
The activation is taking long time, I assume is because we checked the flag "SIDs Generation upon Activation". I am confused about this check. I really need it? is this check the only problem.
Thanks for you help.
Victoria

Hi Victoria:
If your Z DSO is used only for staging purposes (you don't have queries based on this DSO and you send the data to another DSO or to an InfoCube) then you don't need to check the "SIDs Generation Upon Activation" box.
Even more, to achieve better performance during data loads in this scenario, you might consider using a Write Optimized DSO instead of a Standard DSO, but if you decide to take this alternative don't forget to select the "Do Not check Uniqueness of Data" box if you need to write several records with the same Semantic Key.
Regards,
Francisco Milán.

F4 Help is taking long time

Hi All,
We are working on BI 7.0. version
In the varaible pop-up screen we have two info objects.
1. Fiscal year Period
2. JOA(Joint operating aggriment)
If u press F4 for JOA, it is taking long time to execute and finally the application is getting closed.same situation is there in RSRT also.
If i enter with out JOA the query is giving the output. Here i have to restrict the query by JOA.
i have changed the JOA peroperties in query designer.
Query execution for filter value selection = Values in master data table.......
but still the situation is the same.......
Could you please suggest any solution for this.....
Thanks & Regards,
PK

Hi Kamal,
You can set that at the query level in the query designer for each query.
1. Select the corresponding characteristic in the query designer.
2. Goto to the "Extended tab" in the properties
3. Select the "Values in the Master data table" in the "Query execution in the filter value selection.
Also see some recomendations:
Note 748623 - Input help (F4) has a very long runtime - recommendations
Hope this helps.
CK

Update ztable is taking long time

Hi All,
i have run the 5 jobs with the same program at a time but when we check the db trace
zs01 is taking long time as shown below.here zs01 is having small amount of data.
in the below dbtrace for updating zs01 is taking 2,315,485 seconds .how to reduce this?
HH:MM:SS.MS Duration     Program   ObjectName Op.   Curs   Array   Rec     RC     Conn
2:36:15 AM     2,315,485     SAPLZS01 ZS01       FETCH 294     1     1     0     R/3
The code as shown below
you can check the code in the program SAPLZS01 include LZS01F01.
FORM UPDATE_ZS01.
IF ZS02-STATUS = '3'.
    IF Z_ZS02_STATUS = '3'.            "previous status is ERROR
      EXIT.
    ELSE.
      SELECT SINGLE FOR UPDATE * FROM ZS01
             WHERE PROC_NUM    = ZS02-PROC_NUM.
      CHECK SY-SUBRC = 0.
      ADD ZS02-MF_AMT TO ZS01-ERR_AMT.
      ADD 1           TO ZS01-ERR_INVOI.
      UPDATE ZS01.
    ENDIF.
ENDIF.
my question is when updating the ztable why it is taking such long time,
how to reduce the time or how to make faster to update the ztable .
Thanks in advance,
regards
Suni

Try the code like this..
data: wa_zs01 type zs01.
FORM UPDATE_ZS01.
IF ZS02-STATUS = '3'.
    IF Z_ZS02_STATUS = '3'.            "previous status is ERROR
      EXIT.
    ELSE.
      SELECT SINGLE FOR UPDATE * FROM ZS01
             WHERE PROC_NUM    = ZS02-PROC_NUM.
-- change
CHECK SY-SUBRC = 0.
      ADD ZS02-MF_AMT TO wa_ZS01-ERR_AMT.
      ADD 1           TO wa_ZS01-ERR_INVOI.
      UPDATE ZS01 from wa_zs01.
    ENDIF.
ENDIF.
And i think this Select query for ZS01 is inside the ZS02 SELECT statement,
This might also make slow process.
If you want to make database access always use Workarea/Internal table to fetch the data
and work with that.
Accessing database like this or with Select.... endselect is an inefficient programming.

Fwrite() and fread() of a shared FAT32 formatted file is taking long time in MAC osx Lion C program

Hi
Is there any provision or api in MAC to open a file in shared mode same as windows
hUSBdrive = CreateFile(pDriveName, GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING, NULL);
we have the follwing scenario where a file is shared among two processes for read/write.one is running on Linux and the other one is running on MAC.where both the processses are reading/writing into the same memory location in the file say "X"
FAT 32 formatted raw data file which is located on the device, is shared among two processes.
One process is running on Linux device which is connected to MAC book through usb.In this linux process, the file is opened using fopen() and we have used fcntl() with O_DIRECT flag.This process continuously reads/writes data on memory location "X" in the shared file .
The other process is running on Mac which has simple c program that opens the file on the connected device i.e from usb drive and reads/writes data using fread()/fwrite().fopen() is used to open the file and FILE_NOCACHE flag is used to avoid caching.
The value at memory location "X" is updated by mac by using fwrite() and the linux process reads the memory location "X" by using fread(). Linux process is taking around 30 sec to get the updated value.
If the value is updated by Linux process at memory location "X" by using fwrite() the MAC process is also taking long time more than a minute to read the updated value by usng fread().
fwrite()/fread() on mac is taking long time where as the windows application which uses the same apis is taking msec time.
Do we need to use other api s or flags to open file?
thanks in advance.......

does any one face this kind of problem?
fwrite() and fread() takes long time?
Is there any problem in read/write to a fat32 file on MAC?

RSPCM is taking long time

Hi,
RSPCM is taking long time to open at the same time RSPC is working fine
when I try to change the process chain status through RSPC_PROCESS_FINISH . it is executing for long time no response. I tried executing it backgrond also from past 2 days it is running, no progress.
Our basis team created index to all backend table of RSPCM, still issue persist. Please suggest me some to get rid of this.
Br,
Harish

hi,
Please check the below thread
RSPCM T-Code was executing very slow
Please check note 1372931
hope it helps!
Edited by: Lavanya J on Nov 4, 2011 1:32 PM

Sales order creation, standard event trigger is taking long time .

We have a requirement where we are sending data to CRM system using RFC function module. This data is sent while sales order creation or change. We have used standard event BUS2032.CREATED to trigger CRM FM in sales order creation mode. In sales order change mode, we are using custom event. In production system, our custom change event is getting triggered fine and data is sent to CRM system with small time lag of around 1 minute. But, while sales order creation, standard event trigger is taking long time ( sometimes about 20 minutes) in production system.
We tried triggering same custom event at the time of sales order creation using FM u2018SWE_EVENT_CREATE_IN_UPD_TASKu2019 as well but, still we are not able to improve performance of the event trigger at sales order creation.
Regards,
Sushee Joshi

HI,
we have written SWE_EVENT_CREATE in update task
I think instead of calling in update task simply call to function module CALL FUNCTION "SWE_EVENT_CREATE" might trigger the event immediately.. Did you try to check in this way..
OR
And I also suggest you to check the entry in SWE2 txn with respect to your workflow tempalte, may be you have enable the option ENABLE EVENT QUEUE, this could be one of the reasons.. If it is enabled please disable it (uncheck)
Please check..
Regards
Pavan

VB Macro in Bex Analyser is taking long time to complete execution

Hi Experts,
In a FI query , we have a VB macro which update the excel sheets by taking values from the previous excel sheets .
The issue is its taking long time for query execution and if we are keep on pressing 'ENTER' button . The query is running very fastly and is giving the results ,but its not a correct way to do.
Its a critical issue in Production and can anyone help me to resolve the issue.
Regards,
Anju

Hi Anju,
I need to create a VB macro in one of my query but i not familiar how i can plug the VB code into the query.
Please can you give me some basic procedure on how to do that?
What i need to do exactly is to bring a KF from a query into another query. Not sure if this is possible using VB.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Cesar

Retry recovery action is taking long time to complete

Hi,
I am in the process of testing error handling for my BPEL process.
As part of it, I have given the default recover action in the fault policy of the process as retry with a retry count of 3 times with retry interval as 2.
To test this, i have changed the target end point uri of the target service to some invalid url and ran the process.
First I was not able to find the BPEL process instance at all in the console.
Later I was able to find the instance after half an hour. When I saw the instance, if retry had happened or not.
I found that the retry happened for 3 times, but it took 30 mins for the first retry to complete and start the second retry.
Can anyone please let me know why the retry is taking long time although the retry interval I gave is only 2 seconds.
THanks in advance!!!!

Hi,
Please find below the fault policy file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<faultPolicy version="2.0.1" id="TestFaultPolicy" xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns="http://schemas.oracle.com/bpel/faultpolicy" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
     <Conditions>
     <faultName>
     <condition>
     <action ref="aia-ora-retry"/>
     </condition>
     </faultName>
     </Conditions>
     <Actions>
          <Action id="aia-ora-retry">
               <retry>
                    <retryCount>3</retryCount>
                    <retryInterval>2</retryInterval>
                    <exponentialBackoff/>
                    <retryFailureAction ref="aia-ora-java"/>
                    <retrySuccessAction ref="aia-ora-java"/>
               </retry>
          </Action>
          
          <Action id="ora-replay-scope">
               <replayScope/>
          </Action>
          
          <Action id="ora-rethrow-fault">
               <rethrowFault/>
          </Action>
          
          <Action id="ora-human-intervention">
               <humanIntervention/>
          </Action>
          
          <Action id="ora-terminate">
               <abort/>
          </Action>
          <Action id="aia-ora-java">
          <javaAction className="oracle.apps.aia.core.eh.BPELJavaAction" defaultAction="ora-rethrow-fault">
          <returnValue value="REPLAY" ref="ora-terminate"/>
          <returnValue value="RETRHOW" ref="ora-rethrow-fault"/>
          <returnValue value="ABORT" ref="ora-terminate"/>
          <returnValue value="RETRY" ref="aia-ora-retry"/>
          <returnValue value="MANUAL" ref="ora-human-intervention"/>
          </javaAction>
</Action>
     </Actions>
</faultPolicy>

Full GC taking longer time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for