Item/Drill Report Performance hinderance

I am having a problem with report performance. I have a report that I have to have 5 drop down menus on top of the report. It seems the more drop down menus I add, the slower the response time when the report is actually navigated. One of the drop downs has over 1,000 options, but the other 4 drop down menus have 4-5 options. Is there a way to improve performance?

And this is different from yesterday how?
Please help, Discoverer Performance.
Russ provided a few possible reasons, and asked for a bit of detail. Instead of asking the same question again, respond to Russ and others, and provide a bit more information to how things are set up.

Similar Messages

Report Performance for GL item level report.

Hi All,
I have a requirements to get GL line items
report based on GL Line items so have created data model like 0FI_GL_4->DSO-> cube and tested everything is fine but when execute in production the report performance is very bad.
Report contains document number, GL act, comp.code, posting date objects.
I have decided to do as follows to improve reporting performance
· Create Aggregate on Document, GL characteristic
· Compression.
Can I do aggregates 1st then do the compression.
Please let me know if I missing out anything.
Regards,
Naani.

Hi Naani,
First fill the Aggrigates then do Compression,run SAP_INFOCUBE_DESIGN Check the size of Dimension maintain Line item, High cordinality to the dimension, Set Cahe for query in RSRT,
Try to reduce Novigational Attr in report. Below document may help you.
http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/6071ed5f-1057-2e10-deb6-d3426fec0219?QuickLink=index&…
Regards,
Jagadeesh

Drill through report performance

i have a simple drill through report based on one parameter (indexed) that runs sub-second in SSMS but through SSRS it takes more like 10+ seconds. Occasionally, it seems like first time running, it takes a second or two which is more like what I expect.
When I look at ExecutionLog3 info I see this:
<AdditionalInfo>
<ProcessingEngine>2</ProcessingEngine>
<ScalabilityTime>
<Pagination>0</Pagination>
<Processing>0</Processing>
</ScalabilityTime>
<EstimatedMemoryUsageKB>
<Pagination>5</Pagination>
<Processing>12</Processing>
</EstimatedMemoryUsageKB>
<DataExtension>
<SQL>1</SQL>
</DataExtension>
<Connections>
<Connection>
<ConnectionOpenTime>2</ConnectionOpenTime>
<DataSets>
<DataSet>
<Name>Instruments</Name>
<RowsRead>8</RowsRead>
<TotalTimeDataRetrieval>29471</TotalTimeDataRetrieval>
<ExecuteReaderTime>29471</ExecuteReaderTime>
</DataSet>
</DataSets>
</Connection>
</Connections>
</AdditionalInfo>
Any ideas how to improve the performance of the drill thru report? The column being filtered based on the parameter is indexed and when running the sql in SSMS it runs subsecond.

Normally drill through report performance is faster than sub report. If you need to get more performance
then you can go with the snapshot. In this case the data will be available in cache memory so whenever you
requesting a data in
report, it will display the result as like you want.
Thanks
Hari

Bex Report Performance

Dear Friends,
I would like to know is the complex authorizations can also cause the Bex report performance.
One of my scenerio is like there are two users A & B
A is having relevant authorizations for reporting, Drill down etc which are required.
B is having SAP All authorization.
When the same report has been executed by both users on the same system.
the data retrieved by user B(SAP_ALL authorization) is quite faster than User A.
Its like ther diffference of about 10 minutes.
There are some exsclude selections in report.
So my conclusion is like the complex authorizations do also hampers the query performance.
Please confirm & share your views.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Vivek Tripathi
+91-9372313000

Hi Vivek
     Can you help us understand what was the exact problem and how you resolved it / solution at Extraction / Modeling / Reporting end.
     I have a quite similiar issue with my report i have Header + Item report on Infoset
u2022     Header report takes seconds and item report takes minutes
u2022     The same report executed with exact parameter has inconsistent performance results meaning one time it takes 1 minutes next time same report same user and same authorization takes 5 minutes.
    Any help on this would be really greatfull. Suspecting is not an issue with the report at all , as no changes happened between the pre and post check.
_Additional Information : _
We Create Secondary -Bitmap index every week end i do not see that is one of the route cause.
Except that we have our regular daily loads that are running for master data loads and transaction data loads in series.
   Thanks in Advance.
Much Regards
Jagadish Thirumalachetty.
Edited by: Jagadish Thirumalachetty on Jul 14, 2010 1:35 PM

FRS report performance issue

Hello,
We have a report developed in FRS in the below style.
http://postimg.org/image/bn9dt630h/b9c2053d/
Basically, all the dimensions are asked in POV. In the rows of the reports, we have two sparse dimensions that are drilled down to level 0 as shows in above report. The report works fine when run in local currency (Local currency is a stored member). When the report runs in a different currency (dynamic member) then it keeps on running for ages. We waited for 45 minutes and then had to cancel a report, when the same was run in local currency, it gave us our results in 30 seconds.
My thinking is that there should be a better way of showing level 0 members than using "Descendants of Current Point of View for Total_Entity AND System-defined member list Lev0,Entity" as I presume what it does is get descendants as well as level0 members and then compare them. I have alternate hierarchies hence I am using this, isn't there a simple way of saying - just give me level 0 members of the member selected in POV ?
I have used below parameters
Connection - Essbase
Suppress rows on Database connection server
Regards,

Hello,
>> The report works fine when run in local currency (Local currency is a stored member). When the report runs in a different currency (dynamic member) then it keeps on running for ages.
You are focusing on the report. The most likely reason is in the performance of the database. Ofcourse, you can reduce the query size and get your report performing again, but the root cause is likely the database design.
I do not know a function to drill down to the level0 members of the selected POV member.
If this is something different per user, then you might think about meta-read filters. They would remove all that is not granted.
Regards,
Philip Hulsebosch

Interactive report performance problem over database link - Oracle Gateway

Hello all;
This is regarding a thread Interactive report performance problem over database link that was posted by Samo.
The issue that I am facing is when I use Oracle function like (apex_item.check_box) the query slow down by 45 seconds.
query like this: (due to sensitivity issue, I can not disclose real table name)
SELECT apex_item.checkbox(1,b.col3)
, a.col1
, a.col2
FROM table_one a
, table_two b
WHERE a.col3 = 12345
AND a.col4 = 100
AND b.col5 = a.col5
table_one and table_two are remote tables (non-oracle) which are connected using Oracle Gateway.
Now if I run above queries without apex_item.checkbox function the query return or response is less than a second but if I have apex_item.checkbox then the query run more than 30 seconds. I have resolved the issues by creating a collection but it’s not a good practice.
I would like to get ideas from people how to resolve or speed-up the query?
Any idea how to use sub-factoring for the above scenario? Or others method (creating view or materialized view are not an option).
Thank you.
Shaun S.

Hi Shaun
Okay, I have a million questions (could you tell me if both tables are from the same remote source, it looks like they're possibly not?), but let's just try some things first.
By now you should understand the idea of what I termed 'sub-factoring' in a previous post. This is to do with using the WITH blah AS (SELECT... syntax. Now in most circumstances this 'materialises' the results of the inner select statement. This means that we 'get' the results then do something with them afterwards. It's a handy trick when dealing with remote sites as sometimes you want the remote database to do the work. The reason that I ask you to use the MATERIALIZE hint for testing is just to force this, in 99.99% of cases this can be removed later. Using the WITH statement is also handled differently to inline view like SELECT * FROM (SELECT... but the same result can be mimicked with a NO_MERGE hint.
Looking at your case I would be interested to see what the explain plan and results would be for something like the following two statements (sorry - you're going have to check them, it's late!)
WITH a AS
(SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ *
FROM table_one),
b AS
(SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ *
FROM table_two),
sourceqry AS
(SELECT b.col3 x
       , a.col1 y
       , a.col2 z
FROM table_one a
    , table_two b
WHERE a.col3 = 12345
AND   a.col4 = 100
AND   b.col5 = a.col5)
SELECT apex_item.checkbox(1,x), y , z
FROM sourceqry
WITH a AS
(SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ *
FROM table_one),
b AS
(SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ *
FROM table_two)
SELECT apex_item.checkbox(1,x), y , z
FROM table_one a
    , table_two b
WHERE a.col3 = 12345
AND   a.col4 = 100
AND   b.col5 = a.col5If the remote tables are at the same site, then you should have the same results. If they aren't you should get the same results but different to the original query.
We aren't being told the real cardinality of the inners select here so the explain plan is distorted (this is normal for queries on remote and especially non-oracle sites). This hinders tuning normally but I don't think this is your problem at all. How many distinct values do you normally get of the column aliased 'x' and how many rows are normally returned in total? Also how are you testing response times, in APEX, SQL Developer, Toad SQLplus etc?
Sorry for all the questions but it helps to answer the question, if I can.
Cheers
Ben
http://www.munkyben.wordpress.com
Don't forget to mark replies helpful or correct ;)

Apex report performance is very poor with apex_item.checkbox row selector.

Hi,
I'm working on a report that includes some functionality to be able to select multiple records for further processing.
The report is based on a view that contains a couple of hundred thousand records.
When i make a selection from this view in sqlplus , the performance is acceptable but the apex report based on the same view performes very poorly.
I've noticed that when i omit the apex_item.checkbox from my report query, performance is on par with sqlplus. (factor 10 or so quicker).
Explain plan appears to be the same with or without checkbox function in the select.
My query is:
select apex_item.checkbox(1,tan_id) Select ,
brt_id
, tan_id
, message_id
, conversation_id
, action
, to_acn_code
, information
, brt_created
, tan_created
from (SELECT brt.id brt_id, -- view query
MAX (TAN.id) tan_id,
brt.message_id,
brt.conversation_id,
brt.action,
TAN.to_acn_code,
TAN.information,
brt.created brt_created,
TAN.created tan_created
FROM (SELECT brt_id, id, to_acn_code, information, created
FROM xxcjib_transactions
WHERE tan_type = 'DELIVER' AND status = 'FINISHED') TAN,
xxcjib_berichten brt
WHERE brt.id = TAN.brt_id
GROUP BY brt.id,
brt.message_id,
brt.conversation_id,
brt.action,
TAN.to_acn_code,
TAN.information,
brt.created,
TAN.created)
What could be the reason for the poor performance of the apex report?
And is there another way to select multiple report records without the apex_item.checkbox function?
I'm using apex 3.2 on oracle 10g database.
Thanks,
Niels Ingen Housz
Edited by: user11986529 on 19-mrt-2010 4:06

Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately changing the pagination doesnt make much of a difference in this case.
Without the checkbox the query takes 2 seconds.
With checkbox it takes well over 30 seconds.
The second report region on this page based on another view seems to perform reasonably well with or without the checkbox.
It has about the same number of records but with a different view query.
There are also a couple of filter items in the where clause of the report queries (same for both reports) based on date and acn_code and both reports have a selectlist item displayed in their regions based on a simple lov. These filter items don't seem to be of influence on the performance.
I have also recreated the report on a seperate page without any other page items or where clause and the same thing occurs.
With the checkbox its very very slow (more like 20 times slower).
Without it , the report performs well.
And another thing, when i run the page with debug on i don't see the actual report query:
0.08: show report
0.08: determine column headings
0.08: activate sort
0.08: parse query as: APEX_CMA_ONT
0.09: print column headings
0.09: rows loop: 30 row(s)
and then the region is displayed.
I am using databaselinks in the views b.t.w
Edited by: user11986529 on 19-mrt-2010 7:11

Reporting Performance

Hi All,
What are the reporting performance can we do ?
Ciao
Gigi

Kumar,
You recommend using Infosets to report on ODSs instead of multiproviders. (Bullet point #5) What is the performance benefit for this preference?
Thanks,
Cynara
> Hi Gigi,
>
> Basically, they do several functions:-
>
> 1)Aggregates
> 2)OLAP cache
> 3)Precalculated web templates
> 4)Use small amount or result data as starting point
> of any queries and do the drill down
> 5)Avoid reporting on ODS and use Infoset containing
> ODS for reporting
> 6)If you use exclusion in reporting (<>), the indices
> are not used; so avoid using the exclusion but use
> inclusion
> 7)Use read mode"H" read when navigating and expanding
> hierarchies.
>
>
> TQ
> Kumar

Report Performance - timeout short dump

Hello Experts,
i am trying to improve the performace of a report that was developed long time ago.
Issues i found:
1. The report has many select...Endselect combinations, and selects inside the loop statements.
2. Most of the selects have the addition 'into corresponding fields of' for selecting a few fields, without the table addition.
3. Also few selects have the 'select * from' syntax.
data: begin of itab occurs 0,
          f1,
          f2
          f3.....
          fn,
        end of itab.
Ex: loop at itab.
         select f1 f2 f3 from table1
               into corresponding fields of itab1.
           collect itab1.
         endselect.
          select f4 f5 from table2
              into corresponding fields of itab2.
           endselect.
      endloop.
All this leeds to performace issues.
i have checked ST05, and i have got the details of the error.
My question is which one of the reasons i mentioned above are a major factor in delaying the report performance?
Which one of the above should i conetrate first to get the long runtime down? My goal is to keep my changes to the minimum and improve the performance. Please advise.

> My question is which one of the reasons i mentioned above are a major factor in delaying the report
> performance?
Don't ask people for guesses, if you can see the facts!
Run the SQL Trace several times, and use go to 'Trace List' -> 'Summarize Trace by SQL Statement'
=> Shows you total DB time and time per statement (all executions), the problems are on top of the list.
Check ABAP, detail, and explain!
Read more here:
/people/siegfried.boes/blog/2007/09/05/the-sql-trace-st05-150-quick-and-easy
Siegfried

Report Performance degradation

hi,
We are using around 16 entities in crm on demand R 16which includes both default as well as custom entites.
Since custom entities are not visible in the historical subject area , we decided to stick to the real time reporting.
Now the issue is , we have total 45 lakh record in these entites as a whole.We have reports where we need to retrieve the data across all the enties in one report.Intially we tested the reports with lesser no of records...the report performance was not that bad....but gradually it has degraded as we loaded more n more data over a period of time.The reports now takes approx 5-10 min and then finally diaplays an error msg.Infact after creating a report structure in Step 1 - Define Criteria......n moving to Step 2 - Create Layout it takes abnormal amount of time to display.As far as reports are concerned, we have built them using the best practice except the "Historical Subject Area Issue".
Ideally for best performance how many records should be there one entity?
What cud be the other reasons for such a performance?
We are working in a multi tenant enviroment
Edited by: Rita Negi on Dec 13, 2009 5:50 AM

Rita,
Any report built over the real-time subject areas will timeout after a period of 10 minutes. Real-time subject areas are really not suited for large reports and you'll find running them also degrades the application performance.
Things that will degrade performance are:
* Joins to other dimensions
* Custom calculations
* Number of records
* Number of fields returned
There are some things that just can't be done in real-time. I would look to remove joins from other dimensions e.g. Accounts/Contacts/Opportunities all in the same report. Apply more restrictive filters, e.g. current week/month to reduce the number of records required. Alternatively have very simple report, extract to excel and modify from there. Hopefully in R17 this will be added as a feature but it seems like you're stuck till then
Thanks
Oli @ Innoveer

Report performance while creating report on BEx

All all!
I am creating a report on BOE 4.0 on top of BEx connection as a source. I have developed reports on top of universe in the past and i know that if we keep calculations on reporting end it hampers the report performance. Is this the same case with BEx? if we are following the best practices is it ok to say that we should keep all heavy calculations/ aggregation on BEx or backend for better report performance.
Can you guys please provide your opinion based on your experiance and knowledge. Any feedbacks will help! Thanks.

Hi,
Definitely best-practice to delegate a maximum of CKF to the Cube where possilble, put RKF in the BEx query, and Filters too.
also, add Default Values to your Variables (this will speed up generation of the bics transient universe)
also, since Patch2.10, we are seeing some significant performance improvements reducing 'document initialization' and 'time to prompts' by up to 50% (step such as these often took 1.5 minutes, even on sized systems)
Also, make sure you have BW corrections like this implemented: 1593802 Performance optimization when loading query views
In the BusinessObjects landscape - especially with BI 4.0 - it's all about Sizing and Tuning . Here is your bible the 'sizing companion' guide : http://service.sap.com/~form/sapnet?_SHORTKEY=01100035870000738725&_OBJECT=011000358700000307202011E
Pay particular attention to BICSChunkSize registry settings
Also, the -Xmx JVM Heap Size for the Adaptive Processing Server that is running the DSL_Bridge service.
Regards,
H

Bad reporting performance after compressing infocubes

Hi,
as I learned, we should compress requests in our infocubes. And since we're using Oracle 9.2.0.7 as database, we can use partitioning on the E-facttable to still increase reporting performance. So far all theory...
After getting complaints about worse reporting performance we tested this theory. I created four InfoCubes (same datamodel):
A - no compression
B - compression, but no partitioning
C - compression, one partition for each year
D - compression, one partition for each month
After loading 135 requests and compressing the cubes, we get this amount of data:
15.6 million records in each cube
Cube A: 135 partitions (one per request)
Cube B: 1 partition
Cube C: 8 partitions
Cube D: 62 partitions
Now I copied one query on each cube and with this I tested the performance (transaction rsrt, without aggregates and cache, comparing the database time QTIMEDB and DMTDBBASIC). In the query I selected always one month, some hierarchy nodes and one branch.
With this selection on each cube, I expected that cube D would be fastest, since we only have one (small) partition with relevant data. But reality shows some different picture:
Cube A is fastest with an avg. time of 8.15, followed by cube B (8.75, +8%), cube C (10.14, +24%) and finally cube D (26.75, +228%).
Does anyone have an idea what's going wrong? Are there same db-parameters to "activate" the partitioning for the optimizer? Or do we have to do some other customizing?
Thanks for your replies,
Knut

Hi Björn,
thanks for your hints.
1. after compressing the cubes I refreshed the statistics in the infocube administration.
2. cube C ist partitioned using 0CALMONTH, cube D ist partitioned using 0FISCPER.
3. here we are: alle queries are filtered using 0FISCPER. Therefor I could increase the performance on cube C, but still not on D. I will change the query on cube C and do a retest at the end of this week.
4. loaded data is joined from 10 months. The records are nearly equally distributed over this 10 months.
5. partitioning was done for the period 01.2005 - 14.2009 (01.2005 - 12.2009 on cube C). So I have 5 years - 8 partitions on cube C are the result of a slight miscalculation on my side: 5 years + 1 partion before + 1 partition after => I set max. no. of partitions on 7, not thinking of BI, which always adds one partition for the data after the requested period... So each partition on cube C does not contain one full year but something about 8 months.
6. since I tested the cubes one after another without much time between, the system load should be nearly the same (on top: it was a friday afternoon...). Our BI is clustered with several other SAP installations on a big unix server, so I cannot see the overall system load. But I did several runs with each query and the mentioned times are average times over all runs - and the average shows the same picture as the single runs (cube A is always fastest, cube D always the worst).
Any further ideas?
Greets,
Knut

R12: How to filter Open Item Revaluation Report based on GL Date

Hi,
Anybody know how to filter Open Item Revaluation Report based on GL Date from and GL Date to in R12?
Since we just upgraded from 11.5.10 to 12.1.3 and found we cannot filter those report for specific date. It shown all data included the old data from 8 years ago also.
We need to run the report only for specific date only. Please share with me if anyone know about this.
Thanks.

Pl do not post duplicates - R12: How to filter Open Item Revaluation Report based on GL Date

Error when opening open item list report

Hi Experts,
I was trying to open inventory open item list but I'm getting error. The user is a "super user".
Thanks,
Janice

Hi,
It is an application error. Check SAP note:
2008925 - You cannot run the Open Item List report for Purchase
Requests
Thanks & Regards,
Nagarajan

Open Item List Report Display Branch Wise

Hi,
I want to restrict user from viewing Open Item List Report For All the Branch.If the user logged from One Location named Kolkata then he will be able to see the Open Item List Report For Kolkata Branch Only
not the data for all the Branch .How to do this authentication since it is required urgently on Open Item List Report .
Waiting For Reply ???...
Regards,
Amit Sharma

Hi,
One Database contains all the branches which is initialised in the Location Master Form .
I am using one database only
Regards,
Amit Sharma

Item/Drill Report Performance hinderance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for