Performance comparison between oops reports and normaal reports

Hi Abapers,
                  Can anyone tell me that how is it better to use oops reports instesad of normal reports
as there is no difference in select query in both the reports, and if you have any reports which give the same output developed in oops and normal way....
pls provide me with that.... so that i can check....
Regards
Aarif

Hi Arif,
the performance tuning doesn't mean concern of data fetch load or reducing database access. It also means reduce ABAP load i.e. load of Application Server.
OOABAP report works directly with memory. not with work area or tempory variable top store a value. So if your program is reached with READ, LOOP...ENDLOOP etc. you can reduce its load by using OOABAP concept.
Getting this think, you can develope an application of your own.
Regards,
Anirban

Similar Messages

  • Looking for Performance Comparisons Between JRockit 6 and Sun Java SE 6

    Hello,
    Can someone point me to some performance comparisons (benchmarks, etc.) between the JRockit and Sun JVMs?
    Thanks in advance.

    Hi Ben.
    Before I send to to the SPEC sites (which can be a tad hard to parse) I must ask - What application or type of application are you interested in? The answer will vary a bit depending on what you need.

  • What is the speed/performance comparison between Soundbooth CS5 and Audition CS6?

    Obviously, I don't need to be convinced about the difference. However, in demonstrating and working with Audition I didn't take a note of these speed differences. Does anyone have this information for business justification reasons?
    I am looking for the speed of a sound file (*.wav, approximately 1-5minutes in length) rendering in Soundbooth CS5 and Audition CS6 as well as a comparison of doing 10 files (approximately 1-5 minutes in length each) in Soundbooth and in Audition CS6 (using batch processing) to *.mp3 with basic processes applied. Basic processes that I am checking are Noise Reduction, Trimming front and end silences, Normalization, and rendering to *.mp3 (from *.wav). If anyone can do this for me, that would be awesome!!

    travis_smith_ wrote:
    Hello _durin_, yes all those are great arguments that I've already included; however, some people like to use accurate measures/times/processes...they want numbers.
    So, do you (or anyone else) happen to know the render engine speed of 1 file in Soundbooth v. 1 file in Audition?
    What Durin hasn't perhaps made quite clear is that you'd have to do this on just one machine to come up with any comparisons at all - and if that machine isn't identical to yours, then it's going to be meaningless anyway; some of the processes (like NR) will vary considerably between two different machines, even running the same software. There is no way on earth that this would be an accurate comparison, and I don't think it would convince anybody who actually understood what was at issue. This is the politest way of saying that it's not going to happen... and if Durin, as Audition's Product Owner, isn't prepared to commit himself, then nobody's going to.... BUT:
    Now I am moving towards the argumentation that it should replace everyone's Soundbooth, which is why I need the justification. I would run the tests myself over the current set of files, but with the license gone, I cannot.
    Your real justification isn't going to be based on anything like dodgy process measurements at all, but this: Soundbooth is discontinued - there's very little, if any, support for it now, and there will be no updates to cope with OS changes, etc. Audition, on the other hand, is a long-term, well-supported software product that's under active development, and this is clearly intended to continue. Also there are business package deals to be done (like active subscriptions, etc) that simply weren't available to Soundbooth users, which companies can use far more flexibly. I think you'll find that arguements like this will cut far more mustard than any odious comparisons of 'speed' will.

  • Performance comparison between using sql and pl/sql for same purpose

    Hi All,
    I have to do some huge inserts into a table from some other tables. I have 2 option:
    Option 1
    ======
    a. Declare a cusor for a query involving all source tables, this will return the data to be populated into target
    b. Use a cursor for loop to loop through all the records in the cursor
    c. for each iteration of the loop, populate target columns, do any calculations/function calls required to populate derived columns, and then insert the resulting record into target table
    Option 2
    ======
    Just write a big single "Insert Into ..... Select ..." statement, doing alll calculations/funtion calls in the select statement generating the source data.
    Now my question is ; which option is fast? and why. This operation is performace critical so I need the option which will run faster. Can anybody help???
    Thanks in Advance.

    user9314072 wrote:
    while the above comments are vaild, you should concider maintainability in you code. Even if you can write the sql it might be the code becomes complex making tuning very dificult, and derade performance.Beg to differ on that. Regardless of complexity of code, SQL is always faster than PL/SQL when dealing with SQL data. The reason for that is that PL/SQL still needs to use SQL anyway for row retrieval, and in addition it needs to copy row data from the buffer cache into the PL/SQL PGA. This is an overhead that does not exist in SQL.
    So if you are processing a 100 million rows with a complex 100 line SQL statement, versus a 100 million rows 100 line PL/SQL procedure, SQL will always be faster.
    It is a trade off, my experiance is large SQL's 100's lines long become hard to manage. You need to ask yourself why there are 100's of line of SQL. This points to an underlying problem. A flaky data model is very likely the cause. Or not using SQL correctly. Many times a 100 line SQL can be changed to a 10 liner by introducing different logic that solves the exact same problem easier and faster (e.g. using analytical SQL, thinking "+out-of-the-box+").
    Also, 100's of line of SQL points to a performance issue always. And it does not matter where you move this code logic to PL/SQL or Java or elsewhere, the performance problem will remain. Moving the problem from SQL to PL/SQL or Java does not reduce the number of rows to process, or make a significant change in the number of CPU instructions to be executed. And there's the above overhead mentioned - pulling SQL data into a client memory segment for processing (an overhead that does not exist using SQL).
    So how do you address this then? Assuming the data model is correct, then there are 2 primary methods to address the 100's of SQL lines and its associated performance problem.
    Modularise the SQL. Make the 100's of lines easier to maintain and understand. This can be done using VIEWS and the SQL WITH clause.
    As for the associated performance issue - materialised views comes to mind as an excellent method to address this type of problem.
    my advice is keep things simple, because soon or later you will need to change the code.I'm all for that - but introducing more moving parts like PL/SQL or Java and ref cursors and bulk fetching and so on.. how does that reduce complexity?
    SQL is the first and best place to solve row crunching problems. Do not be fooled into thinking that you can achieve that same performance using PL/SQL or Java.

  • Comparison between Oracle Contracts and Oracle Procurement Contracts?

    Hi All,
    I need some document which give the Comparison between Oracle Contracts and Oracle Procurement Contracts?
    And which of them are suitable for what type of contracts?
    Thanks
    Syed

    Hi,
    Any kind of help plz.
    Regards,
    Subhra

  • Comparison Between Oracle eBS and JD Edwards

    Hi All,
    Is there any site / document / any kind of referference / help on comparison between Oracle-eBS and JD Edwards mainly for Finance and SCM module please ? Need this urgently so any help is appreciated.
    Thanks & Regards,
    Subhra Saha

    Hi,
    Any kind of help plz.
    Regards,
    Subhra

  • Questions on the comparison between Oracle Forms and Oracle APEX

    Hi All,
    The link below presents information about Oracle Application Express for Oracle Forms Developers, the table at the end of the page shows a comparison between Oracle Forms and Oracle APEX, all the points of comparisons are clear for me except 3 points which are:
    •Locking, what is meant by locking models?
    •Database Connections, what is meant by Synchronous/Asynchronous connections in Oracle Forms and Oracle Apex?
    •Architecture, what is meant by 2tier and 3 tier connections?
    http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/application_express/html/apex_for_forms.html
    What I need is a simple explanation for these points without deep details.
    Thanks

    Hi
    That is how I understand that document:
    Locking: Forms, by default, locks a row as soon as the user starts modifying the data. That is pessimistic locking. Apex, on other hand (and optionally forms also) do not lock the record, but before applying any changes checks if the data has changed since the user queried it (what for some reason is called optimistic "locking")
    DB connections: I am not sure why they used the terms synchronous/asynchronous, but the difference is that Forms, by default, keeps an permanent DB connection while the user is using the application, while Apex gets a connection from a connection pool every time a page is requested/submitted.
    Architecture: Forms (in its web version at least) has 3 tiers: the browser, the appserver where the forms service runs and the database. As Apex runs inside the database, there are only 2 tiers: the browser and the database (though you still may need an http server in between which serves static content, I don't think it is considered part of the application in this context). If you are talking about client/server forms, then there are only 2 tiers.
    I hope this helps!
    Luis

  • Comparison between Crystal Report Server XI R1, Crystal Report Server XI R1 , Business objects Enterpirse XI R1 and BOXI R2?

    Hello Everybody,
    I am new to Business Objects Enterprise. I need to know what is differnce between   Crystal Report Server XI R1and Crystal Report Server XI R1 ; Business objects Enterpirse XI R1 and BOXI R2?
    As a beginner, it will be very much helpful for me to learn in a better way and to go in the right track.
    Thanks in Advance.
    Regards,
    Annapoorani

    Annapoorani,
      I will start off with the basic difference beteen Crystal Report Server and Business Objects Enterprise.  We can continue on after this initial bit of information.
      Essentially, Crystal Report Server is a much like a subset of the full Enterprise Product line.  Whereas CRS is used for storing and scheduling Crystal Reports,  the Enterprise product extends this usability to also include Desktop Intelligence Reports as well as Web Intelligence reports.  There are also added features available with the full Enterprise Suite (depending on the licensing and installation) that also provide Performance Management, Dashboards and other enhancements.
    In the sence of XI vs XIR2,  XIR2 is more up to date with fixes and service packs.  You will find the original XI products to be closer to an end of lifecycle when it comes to support. 
    As well, the newest release not mentioned in your line of questioning is Business Objects XI3.0.  Currently this is a java based deployment, but there will be a .NET version forthcoming.  Many new features have been added and you can find more information directly at www.businessobjects.com pages.  There is a full section on the website that outlines the various products.
    Edited by: Tony Foster on Jul 16, 2008 11:22 AM

  • Performance end to end testing and comparison between MPLS VPN and VPLS VPN

    Hi,
    I am student of MSc Network Security and as for my project which is " Comparison between MPLS L3 VPN and VPLS VPN, performance monitoring by end to end testing " I have heard a lot of buzz about VPLS as becoming NGN, I wanted to exppore that and produce a comparison report of which technology is better. To accomplish this I am using GNS3, with respect to the MPLS L3 VPN lab setup that is not a problem but I am stuck at the VPLS part how to setup that ? I have searched but unable to find any cost effective mean, even it is not possible in the university lab as we dont have 7600 series
    I would appreciate any support, guidence, advice.
    Thanks
    Shahbaz

    Hi Shahbaz,
    I am not completely sure I understand your request.
    MPLS VPN and VPLS are 2 technologies meant to address to different needs, L3 VPN as opposed as L2 VPN. Not completely sure how you would compare them in terms of performance. Would you compare the performance of a F1 racing car with a Rally racing car?
    From the ISP point of view there is little difference (if we don't want to consider the specific inherent peculiarities of each technology) , as in the very basic scenarios we can boil down to the following basic operations for both:
    Ingress PE impose 2 labels (at least)
    Core Ps swap top most MPLS label
    Egress PE removes last label exposing underlying packet or frame.
    So whether the LSRs deal with underlying L2 frames or L3 IP packets there is no real difference in terms of performance (actually the P routers don't even notice any difference).
    About simulators, I am not aware of anyone able to simulate a L2 VPN (AtoM or VPLS).
    Riccardo

  • DIfference Between OOPS ALV and WEBDYNPRO FOR ABAP ALV?

    Hi to All,
    i want some information that What is main difference when we develop ALV Report in OOPS and WEBDYNPRO For ABAP.which is good n in what way it is good?
    In the Same way I m also want know that WHICH IS BETTER AMONG WEBDYNPRO FOR JAVA/ABAP.In which way?
    Regards,
    Ravi K

    Thanku for ur valuble Information.
    could u give me information regarding OOPS ALV and WEBDYNPRO FOR ABAP ALV?which is better?is there differences?
    Edited by: ravi k on Mar 26, 2008 12:23 PM

  • Heat comparison between a macbook and a dell

    Hi all,
    Found this on digg. Interesting comparison of core duo heat issues between a macbook and a dell.
    http://iith096.blogspot.com/2006/07/macbook-vs-dell-heated-battle.html

    .

  • Hyperion Version Comparison Between 9.x and 11.x

    Hello Experts,
    Is it possible for you to provide me any guide(doc) or link that contains comparison between Hyperion 9.x products and Hyperion 11.x (latest) products? Or advise suitable team to contact about this.
    Your help in this matter is most appreciated.
    Many thanks in Advance,
    Anil

    Hi, Tomi,
    I believe it will be better if you post this question in the LabVIEW Discussion Forum. People there might give you a better opinion.
    GValdes

  • Comparison between Oracle BI and Cognos

    hi All,
    Can anyone tell me about the differences between Oracle BI and Cognos BI(8i)?
    Actually at the present time i m working on Oracle BI and later(after few days) i need to work on Cognos BI (8i).
    so if anyone has any stuff or link related to the same then please help me out
    thanks

    Hi
    I am working on Hyperion. Really need to comapre Hyperion Vs Cognos
    Can you tell me where to get Cognos8.3 installation set up.
    Thanks

  • [8i] Performance difference between a view and an in-line view?

    I have a query with a few 'UNION ALL' statements... each chunk of the query that is joined by the 'UNION ALL' references the same in-line view, but in each chunk it is joined to different tables. If I actually create the view and reference it in each chunk, will it still run the query behind the view for each chunk, or will it only do it once? I just want to know if it will improve the performance of my query. And, I'm not talking about creating a materialized view, just a regular one.

    Because of the complexity of my query, I tried out a simple (really simple) example instead...
    First, I created my simple view
    Then, I ran a query with a UNION ALL in it against that view
    Next, I ran the same UNION ALL query, but using in-line views instead of the one I created, and these are the results I got:
    (against the view I created)
    890 rows selected.
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=RULE
       1    0   UNION-ALL
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'PART'
       3    2       INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'PART_PK' (UNIQUE)
       4    1     TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'PART'
       5    4       INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'PART_PK' (UNIQUE)
    Statistics
             14  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
           1080  consistent gets
            583  physical reads
              0  redo size
          54543  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
           4559  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
             61  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              0  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
            890  rows processed
    timing for: query_timer
    Elapsed: 00:00:01.67(with in-line views)
    890 rows selected.
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=RULE
       1    0   UNION-ALL
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'PART'
       3    2       INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'PART_PK' (UNIQUE)
       4    1     TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'PART'
       5    4       INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'PART_PK' (UNIQUE)
    Statistics
              0  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
           1076  consistent gets
            582  physical reads
              0  redo size
          54543  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
           4559  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
             61  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              0  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
            890  rows processed
    timing for: query_timer
    Elapsed: 00:00:00.70Here, it appears that the explain plans are the same, though the statistics and time show better performance with using in-line views...
    Next, I tried the same 2 queries, but using the CHOOSE hint, since the explain plans above show that it defaults to using the RBO...
    Here are those results:
    (hint + use view)
    890 rows selected.
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=HINT: CHOOSE (Cost=1840 Card=1071
               Bytes=57834)
       1    0   UNION-ALL
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'PART' (Cost=920 Card=642 Bytes=3
              4668)
       3    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'PART' (Cost=920 Card=429 Bytes=2
              3166)
    Statistics
             14  recursive calls
              8  db block gets
          12371  consistent gets
          10850  physical reads
              0  redo size
          60726  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
           4441  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
             61  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              2  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
            890  rows processed
    timing for: query_timer
    Elapsed: 00:00:02.90(hint + in-line view)
    890 rows selected.
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=HINT: CHOOSE (Cost=1840 Card=1071
               Bytes=57834)
       1    0   UNION-ALL
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'PART' (Cost=920 Card=642 Bytes=3
              4668)
       3    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'PART' (Cost=920 Card=429 Bytes=2
              3166)
    Statistics
              0  recursive calls
              8  db block gets
          12367  consistent gets
          10850  physical reads
              0  redo size
          60726  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
           4441  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
             61  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              2  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
            890  rows processed
    timing for: query_timer
    Elapsed: 00:00:02.99Obviously, for this simple example, using the CHOOSE hint caused worse performance than letting it default to the RBO (though the explain plans still look the same to me), but what I find interesting is that when I used the hint, the version of the query using the in-line view became at least equivalent to the one using the view, if not worse.
    But, based on these results, I don't know that I can extrapolate to my complex query... or can I? I'm thinking I'm going to have to actually go through and make my views for the complex query and test it out....

  • Performance comparisons between Apple's SSD's and hard drives

    Am looking for objective performance data comparing SSD's in Apple's MacBook Pro versus Apple's hard drives in MacBook Pro. I've read some material in Tom's Hardware but am looking for specific device comparisons of these storage types in MacBooks. Seek/latency/read transfer rates/write transfer rates/reliability/etc.

    Thanks for the information!! I've book-marked the site and plan to refer to it often.

Maybe you are looking for