Performance issue in 'Selelect statement with for all entries'

Hi,
The following SELECT statement is taking too much time.
         SELECT * FROM /rb04/yc5_mver
         INTO TABLE g_it_mver
         FOR ALL ENTRIES IN l_it_inva
         WHERE matnr EQ l_it_inva-matnr AND
                      werks EQ l_it_inva-werks AND
                      indei EQ l_it_inva-indei AND
                      gjahr IN g_r_gjahr.
     Internal table l_it_inva is having too many records.
    Is there any way to optimize it.
Regards,
Tintu

Hi Tintu,
check table l_it_inva for initial.
sort internal table l_it_inva with key matnr werks indei gjahr.
delete adjacent duplicates from l_it_inva comparing matnr werks indei gjahr.
Then use following select query.
SELECT * FROM /rb04/yc5_mver
INTO TABLE g_it_mver
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN l_it_inva
WHERE matnr EQ l_it_inva-matnr AND
werks EQ l_it_inva-werks AND
indei EQ l_it_inva-indei AND
gjahr IN g_r_gjahr.
Regards,
Vijay

Similar Messages

Join statement with for all entries

Hi
Can I write a Inner join with for all entires of some X itab?
Thanks
Kiran

My Local Kunnr itab structure:
TYPES: BEGIN OF l_t_kunnr,
          kunnr TYPE kna1-kunnr,
         END   OF l_t_kunnr,
My normal kunnr tab structure:
TYPES: BEGIN OF t_kna1,                  " Customer Master data
        kunnr   TYPE kna1-kunnr,
        adrnr   TYPE kna1-adrnr,
        ktokd   TYPE kna1-ktokd,
        loevm   TYPE kna1-loevm,
        cstat   TYPE knkk-crblb,
       END   OF t_kna1,
My Join Stmt:
      SELECT a~kunnr                         " Customer no
             a~adrnr                         " Address no
             a~ktokd                         " Customer type
             a~loevm                         " deletion key
           FROM kna1 as a inner join knvv as b
           on akunnr eq bkunnr
           INTO TABLE i_kna1
           for all entries in l_i_kunnr[]
          WHERE a~kunnr IN l_i_kunnr
            and b~vkorg in s_vkorg.
It gives me an error that line structure of my local kunnr itab is incorrect.
Pl lemme know
Thanks
Kiran

INNER JOIN with FOR ALL ENTRIES IN Performance ?

I am using following the following Select using Inner join with For All Entries in.
 SELECT kebeln kebelp kvbeln kvbelp
 FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON kebeln = bebeln
 AND kebelp = bebelp
 INTO TABLE gi_purchase
 FOR ALL ENTRIES
 IN gi_sales
 WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
 AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
 AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
 AND b~budat EQ p_date.
If i am not doing inner join then I will have to do 2 select with for all entries in on ekkn and ekbe tables and then compare them.
I want to know which one has better performance
Inner join with for all entries in
 or
2 Selects with for all entries in

the join is almost aways faster:
<a href="/people/rob.burbank/blog/2007/03/19/joins-vs-for-all-entries--which-performs-better">JOINS vs. FOR ALL ENTRIES - Which Performs Better?</a>
<a href="http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/sap/db2/archives/for-all-entries-vs-db2-join-8912">FOR ALL ENTRIES vs DB2 JOIN</a>
Rob

Inner Join with For All Entries - Performance ?

I am using following the following Select using Inner join with For All Entries in.
 SELECT kebeln kebelp kvbeln kvbelp
 FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON kebeln = bebeln
 AND kebelp = bebelp
 INTO TABLE gi_purchase
 FOR ALL ENTRIES
 IN gi_sales
 WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
 AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
 AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
 AND b~budat EQ p_date.
If i am not doing inner join then I will have to do 2 select with for all entries in on ekkn and ekbe tables and then compare them.
I want to know which one has better performance
Inner join with for all entries in
 or
2 Selects with for all entries in

An Inner Join with for all entries should be done if you add this....
IF NOT gi_sales[] IS INITIAL.
SELECT k~ebeln k~ebelp k~vbeln k~vbelp
FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON k~ebeln = b~ebeln
AND k~ebelp = b~ebelp
INTO TABLE gi_purchase
FOR ALL ENTRIES
IN gi_sales
WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
AND b~budat EQ p_date.
ENDIF.
Also, while you use an index or the complete key for the SELECT, your not going to suffer from lack of performance -;)
Greetings,
Blag.

Coupling INNER JOIN with FOR ALL ENTRIES statement

Hi All,
 I am coupling INNER JOIN with FOR ALL ENTRIES statement .....
 Would you please highlight its implications ?? Is it a best practise ?
 Is it advicable to use MULTIPLE INNER JOINs with a FOR ALL ENTRIES ???
 SORT itab BY matnr.
 IF NOT itab[] IS INITIAL.
 SELECT epmatnr epebeln ep~ebelp
 epwerks epmenge ep~netpr
 ekps_psp_pnr ebbelnr eb~menge
 INTO TABLE iekpo
 FROM ekpo AS ep
 INNER JOIN ekkn AS ek
 ON ekebeln = epebeln
 AND ekebelp = epebelp
 INNER JOIN ekbe AS eb
 ON ebebeln = epebeln
 AND ebebelp = epebelp
 AND eb~bwart = '101'
 FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab
 WHERE ep~matnr = itab-matnr.
 IF sy-subrc EQ 0.
 SORT iekpo BY matnr werks.
 LOOP AT itab ASSIGNING <itab>.
 READ TABLE iekpo WITH KEY matnr = <itab>-matnr
 werks = <itab>-werks
 BINARY SEARCH.
 IF sy-subrc EQ 0.
 MOVE iekpo-matnr TO itab1-matnr.
 MOVE iekpo-ebeln TO itab1-ebeln.
 MOVE iekpo-ebelp TO itab1-ebelp.
 MOVE iekpo-netpr TO itab1-poprice.
 MOVE iekpo-werks TO itab1-werks.
 MOVE iekpo-menge TO itab1-menge1.
 MOVE iekpo-menge1 TO itab1-menge2.
 MOVE iekpo-belnr TO itab1-belnr.
 MOVE iekpo-ps_psp_pnr TO itab1-pspel.
 MOVE <itab>-pspel TO itab1-tpspel.
 MOVE <itab>-sobkz TO itab1-sobkz.
 MOVE <itab>-fo_qty TO itab1-fo_qty.
 MOVE <itab>-schgt TO itab1-schgt.
 MOVE <itab>-postp TO itab1-postp.
 MOVE <itab>-beskz TO itab1-beskz.
 pend_qty = iekpo-menge1 - iekpo-menge2.
 MOVE pend_qty TO itab1-pending.
 APPEND itab1.
 pend_qty = 0.
 ENDIF.
 ENDLOOP.
 ENDIF.
 ENDIF.
ENDIF.
Regards
Jaman
Edited by: ABAP Techie on Sep 15, 2008 12:39 PM
Edited by: ABAP Techie on Sep 15, 2008 12:41 PM

best practise ... don't know ... it is allowed and o.k.
If possible you should of coourse to have no FOR ALL ENTRIES at all !
Joins, there is no general rule, check indexes etc.
The first SORT, I don't that it help for anything, use it together with the delete adjacent duplicates if you expect duplicates in the driver table.
o.k., it can help, if there is a loop afterwards and an append inside, because the new table itab1 is then sorted.
Siegfried

Replacing a inner join with for all entries

Hi Team,
   In a already developed program I am replacing a inner join with select query follow up with for-all-entris and passing the data to final internal table but in both the case the result should be same then only my replacement will be correct. But my no records in both cases differs. This happening because when i am selecting data from first data base table is 32 lines. then I am doing fo-all-entries moving all the duplicate entries then the no records are four. but in final internal table i am looping the first internal table. So in final internal table the no of records are 32. But in inner join query the records are 16.So please let me know how resolve this issue?
Thanks and REgards
Deepa

Hi Thomas,
Thanks for ur suggestion.
The solved that in below.
In select query I did not change anything The way I had written the code was correct.
I think many of us know how to write that how to make the performance better in that way.
I made the change when I transfered the to final internal table.
The original Inner join code:
select a~field1 a~field2 a~field3 b~field2 b~field3 b~field4
           from dbtab1 as a inner join dbtab2 as b
          on a~field1 = b~field1 into it_final where
          a~field1 in s_field1. [Field1 in both the table are key field]
Before code:
Sort itab1 by key-fields.
sort itab2 by keyfields.
loop at itab1 into wa1.
move: wa1-field1 to wa_final-field1,
           wa1-field2 to wa_final-field2,
           wa1-field3 to wa_final-field3.
read table itab2 into wa2 witk key field1 = wa1-field1 binary search.
if sy-subrc = 0.
move : wa2-field2 to wa_final-field4,
             wa2-field3 to wa_final-field5,
             wa2-field4 to wa_final-field6.
append wa_final to it_final.
endif.
Clear : wa1, wa2, wa_final.
endloop.
In this case if the one key fieild value is not present there in second internal table but its there in first internal table still it will read that row with 2nd internal values having zeroes. Normally what does not happen in inner join case if the key field value will same in both the case ,then that will fetch only those rows.
Changed Code
loop at itab1 into wa1.
read table itab2 into wa2 witk key field1 = wa1-field1 binary search.
if sy-subrc = 0.
move: wa1-field1 to wa_final-field1,
           wa1-field2 to wa_final-field2,
           wa1-field3 to wa_final-field3.
move : wa2-field2 to wa_final-field4,
             wa2-field3 to wa_final-field5,
             wa2-field4 to wa_final-field6.
append wa_final to it_final.
endif.
Clear : wa1, wa2, wa_final.
endloop.
In this case the values will read to final internal table if both key field matches.
With Regards
Deepa

How does select stmt with for all entries uses Indexes

Hello all,
I goes through a number of documents but still confused how does select for all entries uses indexes if fields are not in sequences. i got pretty much the same results if i take like two cases on Hr tables HRP1000 and HRP1001(with for all entries based upon hrp1000). Here is the sequence of index fields on hrp1001 (MANDT, OTYPE, OBJID, PLVAR, RSIGN, RELAT, ISTAT, PRIOX, BEGDA, ENDDA, VARYF, SEQNR). in second case objid field is in sequence as in defined Index but i dont see significant increase in field even though the number of records are around 30000. My question is does it make a differrence to use field sequence (same as in table indexes) in comparison to redundant field sequence (not same as defined in table indexes), secondly how we can ge tto know if table index is used in Select for entries query i tried Explain in ST05 but its not clear if it uses any index at all in hrp1001 read.
here is the sample code i use to get test results.
test case 1
REPORT zdemo_perf_select.
DATA: it_hrp1000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1007 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1007 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0002 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0002 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_10 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_20 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: t1 TYPE timestampl,
 t2 TYPE timestampl,
 t3 TYPE timestampl
SELECT * FROM hrp1000 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1000 bypassing buffer
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 otype EQ 'S'AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda <= sy-datum AND
 endda >= sy-datum AND
 langu EQ 'EN'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t1.
SELECT * FROM hrp1001 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1001 bypassing buffer
 FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_hrp1000
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 otype EQ 'S' AND
* objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid and
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 rsign EQ 'B' AND
 relat EQ '007' AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda LT sy-datum AND
 endda GT sy-datum and
 sclas EQ 'C' and
 objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid.
* %_hints mssqlnt 'INDEX(HRP1001~0)'.
*delete it_hrp1001 where sclas ne 'C'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t2.
t3 = t1 - t2.
WRITE: 'Time taken - ', t3.
test case 2
REPORT zdemo_perf_select.
DATA: it_hrp1000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1007 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1007 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0002 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0002 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_10 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_20 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: t1 TYPE timestampl,
 t2 TYPE timestampl,
 t3 TYPE timestampl
SELECT * FROM hrp1000 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1000 bypassing buffer
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 otype EQ 'S'AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda <= sy-datum AND
 endda >= sy-datum AND
 langu EQ 'EN'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t1.
SELECT * FROM hrp1001 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1001 bypassing buffer
 FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_hrp1000
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 otype EQ 'S' AND
 objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid and
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 rsign EQ 'B' AND
 relat EQ '007' AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda LT sy-datum AND
 endda GT sy-datum and
 sclas EQ 'C'." and
* objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid.
* %_hints mssqlnt 'INDEX(HRP1001~0)'.
*delete it_hrp1001 where sclas ne 'C'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t2.
t3 = t1 - t2.
WRITE: 'Time taken - ', t3.

Mani wrote:
Thank you for your answer, its very helpful but i am still nor sure how does parameter rsdb/max_blocking_factor affect records size.
Hi,
The blocking affects the size of the statement and the memory structures for returning the result.
So if your itab has 500 rows and your blocking is 5, the very same statement will be executed 100 times.
Nothing good or bad about this so far.
Assume, your average result for an inlist 5 statement is 25 records with an average size of 109 bytes.
You average result size will be 2725 byte plus overhead which will nearly perfectly fit into two 1500 byte ethernet frames.
Nothing to do in this case.
Assume your average result for an inlist 5 statement is 7 records with an average size of 67 bytes.
You average result size will be ~ 470 byte plus overhead which will only fill 1/3 of a 1500 byte ethernet frame.
In this case, setting the blocking to 12 ... 15 will give you 66% network transfer performance gain,
and reduces the number of calls to the DB by 50%, giving additional benefit.
Now this is an extreme example. The longer the average row length is, the lower will be the average loss in the network.
You have the same effects in memory structures, but on that layer you are fighting single micro seconds instead of
hundreds of these, so in real life it is rarely measurable.
Depending on table-statistics, oracle might decide for short inlists to use a concatanation instead of an inlist.
This is supposed to be more costy, but I never had a case where I could proove a big difference.
Values from 5 to 15 for blocking seem to be ok for me. If you have special statements in customer coding,
it #might# be benefitial to do the mentioned calculations and do some network tracing to see if you can squeeze your
network efficiency by tuning the blocking.
If you have jumbo frames enabled, it might be worth to be analyzed as well.
If you are only on a DB-CI system that is loopback connected to the DB, I doubt there might be a big outcome.
Hope this helps
Volker

Can we use inner joins with for all entries?

Hi,
    Can we use innerjoin on two tables MARA and MAKT against the materials in
    the internal table.
    If so ,please let me know whether there is performance issue.Because if there is
    bad performance issue or something else like thise means,my project manager
    wont allow to include.
    So can one let me know about this.
Thanks,
Balaji

Hi Arunkumar,
                           I think you are not clear.My question is can I use innerjoin with
for all entries.For example below is my code.
SELECT A~MATNR
         B~MAKTX
         A~MTART
         A~MATKL
         FROM MARA AS A INNER JOIN MAKT AS B
         ON AMATNR = BMATNR
         INTO TABLE IT_MARA_MAKT
         FOR ALL ENTRIES IN IT_MATNR
         WHERE A~MATNR = IT_MATNR-MATNR
         AND   A~EXTWG = P_EXTWG
         AND   A~SPART = P_SPART.
Can we use like this for all entries along with innerjoins.
Thanks,
Balaji

Group by with for all entries

Hi,
   SELECT max( VBELN ) VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3
       FROM VBRP
       INTO TABLE T_INVIT
       FOR ALL ENTRIES IN T_INVHD
       WHERE VBELN = T_INVHD-VBELN
       AND    SPART = T_INVHD-SPART
       AND    werks IN swerks
       AND    mvgr3 IN smvgr3
       group by VBELN VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3.
i want to (max) invoice no against a delivery i.e vgbel but in this query i am getting error that with for all entries only count * is allowed.
regards
Fozia

Hi Do this way..
IF NOT T_INVHD[] is initial.
LOOP AT T_INVHD
SELECT max( VBELN ) VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3
FROM VBRP
INTO T_INVIT
WHERE VBELN = T_INVHD-VBELN
AND SPART = T_INVHD-SPART
AND werks IN swerks
AND mvgr3 IN smvgr3
group by VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3.
IF SY-SUBRC = 0.
APPEND T_INVIT.
CLEAR T_INVIT
ENDIF.
endselect.
endloop.
endif.
EVEN NO EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
RGDS
RAJESH

Using aggregate function along with for all entries: sugest alternative

My requirement:
For each record in i_vbap for which 'charg' is initial, need to determine batch using the following logic:
For the material (MATNR) in i_vbap, select the batch (CHARG) which has the largest (MAX) unrestricted inventory quantity (CLABS) from MCHB table.
How do I implement this logic without using select statement inside a loop as I cannot use MAX ( CLABS ) function along with FOR ALL ENTRIES in a SELECT?
Suggest an alternative.

For each record in i_vbap for which 'charg' is initial ,fetch all the existing 'clabs' value.
[ Remember to include all the key fields in selct ]
Sort the new table .
Put a loop,use at end of 'charg' and append to another table. U get ur solution
I think this should be the most economic way to do so.

Alternative for / Problems with: "For all entries in data_package"

Hi Guys
I doing some ABAP in a Start Rotine in BW and would like to do the following:
select * from /BI0/PMATERIAL into table 0mat
for all entries in DATA_PACKAGE
where material = DATA_PACKAGE-/bic/zmaterial.
But I get the following error:
E:When using the addition "FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab", the fields "MATERIAL" and "DATA_PACKAGE-/BIC/ZMATERIAL" must have the same type and length. and length.
ZMATERIAL:
- Length: 28
- Type: CHAR - Character String
ZMATERIAL:
- Length: 18
- Type: CHAR - Character String
According to the error message "For all entries" cannot be used in this case since the lengths are not identical, but is there an alternative way to do what I would like to do?
Thanks in advance, kind regards,
Torben

Hi
one thing you can try like this define one variable in other itab of same type
then loop at the first table and assign it to new field and modify the itab
then use this field with for all entries
Regards
Shiva

Can DRIVER itab & RESULTANT itab be same with FOR ALL ENTRIES ??

Hi All,
Can DRIVER itab & RESULTANT itab be same with FOR ALL ENTRIES ??
Whole idea is to update one field of ITAB from another table ....
Regards
Jaman
Edited by: ABAP Techie on Sep 11, 2008 8:25 AM

I found this in the F1-Help for "FOR ALL ENTRIES":
>"In Release 6.10 and higher, the same internal table can be specified after FOR ALL ENTRIES and after INTO."
Check however if you can use a proper JOIN select. This will fill your internal table in one operation and is usually faster than a FOR ALL ENTRIES, contrary to some circulating comments here.
Thomas

Replacing innerjoins with for all entries

can any one help me in replacing the below
innerjoins with for all entries
SELECT avbeln aposnr amatnr apstyv a~werks
    FROM vbap AS a INNER JOIN marc AS b
                           ON amatnr = bmatnr AND
                              awerks = bwerks
    INTO TABLE vbap_itab
   WHERE a~vbeln = i_vbeln-vbeln
     AND a~uepos = 0
     AND b~umrsl = 'VBOM'.
and please tell me which table we need to select first in vbap and marc and why
Edited by: ram reddy on Apr 30, 2008 9:27 AM

hi check this one
data:
       begin of vbap_itab,
       vbeln type vbap_-vbeln,
       posnr type vbap_posnr,
       matnr type vbap_matnr,
       pstyv type vbap_pstvy,
       werks type vbap_werks,
       end of itab,
       begin of marc_itab,
          matnr type marc-matnr,
          werks type marc-werks,
      end of marc_itab.
select matnr
          werks
   from marc
   into table marc-itab
where umrsl = 'VBOM'.
if marc_itab is initial.
exit.
else.
select vbeln
          posnr
         matnr
         pstvy
         werks
from vbap
into table vbap_itab
for all entries in marc_itab
where matnr = marc_itab-matnr
      and    werks = marc_itab-werks
      and vbeln = i_vbeln-vbeln
      and uepos = 0.
endif.
Edited by: ravi kumar on Apr 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Need to SUM on a field with FOR ALL ENTRIES

Hi All,
   I need to use something like this appearing below ....but SUM is not allowed with FOR ALL ENTRIES ......Whats   the efficient ALTERNATIVE ???
     SELECT sum( menge ) INTO   TABLE imseg
                            FROM   mseg
                            FOR ALL ENTRIES IN iresb
                            WHERE matnr = iresb-matnr
                              AND bwart = '281'
                              AND aufpl = iresb-aufpl
                              AND aplzl = iresb-aplzl.
    Any help will be rewarded & appreciated ...
Regards
Jaman

Hi Karthik,
     Thanx a   ton....
      How about   the below   approach .....its   allowed &   working fine ....also simplifying my work..
          SELECT matnr menge rsnum rspos
                  INTO (ws-matnr, ws-menge, ws-rsnum, ws-rspos)
                  FROM   mseg
                  FOR ALL ENTRIES IN iresb
                  WHERE matnr = iresb-matnr
                    AND bwart = mvtyp1
                    AND rsnum = iresb-rsnum
                    AND rspos = iresb-rspos.
                  imseg2-matnr = ws-matnr.
                  imseg2-menge = ws-menge.
                  imseg2-rsnum = ws-rsnum.
                  imseg2-rspos = ws-rspos.
                  COLLECT imseg2.
          ENDSELECT.

Performance issue fetching huge number of record with "FOR ALL ENTRIES"

Hello,
We need to extract an huge amount of data (about 1.000.000 records) from VBEP table, which overall dimension is about 120 milions records.
We actually use this statements:
CHECK NOT ( it_massive_vbep[] IS INITIAL ) .
SELECT (list of fields) FROM vbep JOIN vbap
             ON vbepvbeln = vbapvbeln AND
              vbepposnr = vbapposnr
             INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF w_sched
             FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_massive_vbep
             WHERE    vbep~vbeln   = it_massive_vbep-tabkey-vbeln
                AND    vbep~posnr   = it_massive_vbep-tabkey-posnr
                AND    vbep~etenr   = it_massive_vbep-tabkey-etenr.
notice that internal table it_massive_vbep contains always records with fully specified key.
Do you think this query could be further optimized?
many thanks,
-Enrico

the are 2 option to improve performance:
+ you should work in blocks of 10.000 to 50.000
+ you should check archiving options, does this really make sense
> VBEP table, which overall dimension is about 120 milions records.
it_massive_vbep into it_vbep_notsomassive (it_vbep_2)
CHECK NOT ( it_vbep_2[] IS INITIAL ) .
get runtime field start.
SELECT (+list of fields+)
              INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE w_sched
              FROM vbep JOIN vbap
              ON vbep~vbeln = vbap~vbeln AND
                   vbep~posnr = vbap~posnr
              FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_vbep_2
              WHERE vbep~vbeln = it_vbep_2-vbeln
              AND      vbep~posnr = it_vbep_2-posnr
              AND      vbep~etenr = it_vbep_2-etenr.
get runtime field stop.
t = stop - start.
write: / t.
Be aware that even 10.000 will take some time.
Other question, how did you get the 1.000.000 records in it_massive_vbep. They are not typed in, but somehow select.
Change the FAE into a JOIN and it will be much faster.
Siegfried

Performance issue in 'Selelect statement with for all entries'

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for