RFFMS200 Report performance query.

Hi SAP gurus,
I'm currently facing a problem with RFFMS200 " Payment Selection" report, which is taking very long time. This is happened after applying support packages to 4.6C and we have support package level up to SAPKH46C57.
I couldn't find any SAP Note for this problem after support package SAPKH46C57.
Could anyone provide some inputs for this problem?
Thanks in Advance..
Best Regards,
Chandra.

Hi,
Check the SAP document:
     Payments with Invoice Reference
You can execute payment selection for a company code or for a FM area.
     If you enter a company code, payment selection is carried out for this
     company code, the FI fiscal year, and the document interval entered. The
     disadvantage of this procedure is that you have to start the program for
     all fiscal years in which there are invoices that are still open in the
     current year.
If you enter a FM area, payment selection is carried out for all open
     invoices of the current FM fiscal year. The advantage of this procedure
     is that you only have to execute the program for the current FM fiscal
     year.
If you have activated the enhanced function, you can reduce the runtime
     of the program considerably by restricting the selection to a particular
     day (entry date). The program then only selects the items entered on
     this day.
In the original payment selection it is not possible to improve
     performance in this way because the program imports all open items.
Activities
You can execute the program as often as you like without changing the
     result. However, no postings should be made between runs and you should
     select the same parameters.
You can also start the program once online with small document intervals
     for test purposes. You have to execute the program in the background for
     larger volumes of documents.
You should run payment selection every day in order to reduce the amount
     of disk space needed for saving and to improve performance.
Regards,
Prashant.
Edited by: Prashant Kumar Upadhyay on Apr 1, 2009 11:10 AM

Similar Messages

Report Performance with Bind Variable

Getting some very odd behaviour with a report in APEX v 3.2.1.00.10
I have a complex query that takes 5 seconds to return via TOAD, but takes from 5 to 10 minutes in an APEX report.
I've narrowed it down to one particular bind. If I hard code the date in it returns in 6 seconds, but if I let the date be passed in from a parameter it takes 5+ minutes again.
Relevant part of the query (an inline view) is:
,(select rglr_lect lect
,sum(tpm) mtr_tpm
,sum(enrols) mtr_enrols
from ops_dash_meetings_report
where meet_ev_date between to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY') - 363 and to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY')
group by rglr_lect) RPV
I've tried replacing the "to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY') - 363" with another item which is populated with the date required (and verified by checking session state). If I replace the :P35_END_DATE with an actual date the performance is fine again.
The weird thing is that a trace file shows me exactly the same Explain Plan as the TOAD Explain where it runs in 5 seconds.
Another odd thing is that another page in my application has the same inline view and doesn't hit the performance problem.
The trace file did show some control characters (circumflex M) after each line of this report's query where these weren't anywhere else on the trace queries. I wondered if there was some sort of corruption in the source?
No problems due to pagination as the result set is only 31 records and all being displayed.
Really stumped here. Any advice or pointers would be most welcome.
Jon.

Don't worry about the Time column, the cost and cardinality are more important to see whther the CBO is making different decisions for whatever reason.
Remember that the explain plan shows the expected execution plan and a trace shows the actual execution plan. So what you want to do is compare the query with bind variables from an APEX page trace to a trace from TOAD (or sqlplus or whatever). You can do this outside APEX like this...
ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS '10046 trace name context forever, level 1';Enter and run your SQL statement...;
ALTER SESSION SET sql_trace=FALSE;This will create a a trace file in the directory returned by...
SELECT value FROM v$parameter WHERE name = 'user_dump_dest' Which you can use tkprof to format.
I am assuming that your not going over DB links or anything else slightly unusual?
Cheers
Ben

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

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

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

Report performance problems on htmldb 1.6

Hello everybody,
I'm not a guru in both pl-sql and htmldb and I'm having slow performances on two queries, that are similar, so I think the root of the problem is the same..here they are:
This query populates a select list and takes about 2 minutes:
SELECT FLAG_VERBAL,FLAG_NUMBER
FROM DISCHARGE_FLAG
WHERE FLAG_NUMBER IN (SELECT UNIQUE(FLAG) FROM HYDRODATA
WHERE LSFLD_ID IN (SELECT ID FROM DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID))This query is in a Report (SQL query Region) and takes about 100 seconds:
SELECT LSFLD_ID, MOMENT, DISCHARGE, FLAG
FROM HYDRODATA
WHERE
FLAG = to_number(:P6_DISCHARGE_TYPE)
AND LSFLD_ID IN(
SELECT ID FROM DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID
AND moment >= to_date(:P6_FROM_DATE, 'yyyy-mm-dd')
AND moment <= to_date(:P6_TO_DATE, 'yyyy-mm-dd')
ORDER BY 1,2By my testing, it seems that the problem is correlated to the sub-SELECT inside the main SELECT.
If I substitute the sub-SELECT statement ( SELECT ID FROM DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID) with a list of its costant values, the output of those queries appears in few seconds.
Another strange thing is that if I run alone the sub-select SELECT ID FROM DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID it also takes few seconds!
So why together they need so much time??
Maybe the problem is in the table DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID? It is populated by a process that:
deletes its content and
copies the selected values (by check boxes) of a previous Report :
DELETE FROM DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID;
FOR I in 1..HTMLDB_APPLICATION.G_F01.COUNT LOOP
INSERT INTO DEMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID(id) VALUES (HTMLDB_APPLICATION.G_F01(i));
END LOOP;Thanks in advance! :D

This is really a SQL question and not a HTML DB question, but I will pose some things for you to consider. Just some high-level tips without getting into the details of your queries.
1) Time your queries in SQL*Plus. I would guess that they are as slow in SQL*Plus as they are in HTML DB
2) Keep in mind that use of functions like TO_NUMBER or TO_CHAR or TO_DATE applied to database columns disables the use of indexing on columns.
3) Look to see if the columns you are joining on are indexed.
4) Use EXPLAIN PLAN and tracing to see what execution plan Oracle is taking.
5) Rewrite your queries. Join your three tables together in one SELECT statement instead of using IN's.
For example change your first query to:
SELECT FLAG_VERBAL,FLAG_NUMBER
FROM DISCHARGE_FLAG df, HYDRODATA h, EMO_SIMO_CGMS_UPPDANUBE_ID e
WHERE df.FLAG_NUMBER = h.FLAG
AND h.LSFLD_ID = e.ID
Mike

2004s Web report performance is not good ,though that of 3x web is OK.

Hi,
I feel 2004s Web report performance is bad, though that of 3x web is no problem (the same query is used.) it is worse than BEx analyzer.
This query has more than 1,000 records and those queries that have many records result in the same bad performance.
Of course there are many reason for this bad performance, please tell me your solution by which you solve the same problem like this.
the SIDs of EP and BI is difference here.
CPU is not consumed when 2004s web report is executed.
And I have cancelled virus scan to this web report...
Kind regards,
Masaaki

It is bad, am sure it's down to the new .net and java based technology. Aggregates are a way forwards though from what i've heard of the BI Accelerator this is the real way forwards.

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

BW Report Performance, Accuracy of Data

Hi,
Can someone help give explanations to following questions :
1.) Does BW Report show how current is my data?
2.) What are the reason why the performance of my BW Report is slow?
3.) What are the reason why my BW Report is have missing data?
4.) Why is my BW Report have incorrect data?
5.) Why doesnu2019t my BW Report Data match SAP R/3 Data?
Thanks,
Milind
Locked - duplicate post and very generic questions
Report performance and data quality
Edited by: Arun Varadarajan on Apr 9, 2010 2:07 AM

Hi,
1) Does BW Report show how current is my data?
Yes, Last refresh of your data stat in query Properties.Run report and check the details for last refresh.
2.) What are the reason why the performance of my BW Report is slow?
Reason could be:
Poor Design
Business Logic (Transformations)
Nav attributes used in the reports
Time dependent MD
Aggregates missing
Data Vol in the Cubes or DSO's
http://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/BI/SomeusefulT-CodeforBIperformancetuning
3.) What are the reason why my BW Report is have missing data?
Check the source system data and check mapping in transformation with all the business logic.
4.) Why is my BW Report have incorrect data?
Depedns if you are loading from FF or R/3 or your are cleansing the data once it enters in to BW.
5.) Why doesnu2019t my BW Report Data match SAP R/3 Data?
Check the Source system data in RSA3 and pick one Document and run the same document in BI.
Thanks!
@AK

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

About report performance

Hi Friends,
I created a report with 45 ref.cursors,
All ref.cursors are in a Package,
The package is in Database side.
The report is report server.
IF i start to run the report through application
the report is taking 50% of cpu memory around 40 seconds.
is this report performance problem ?
if i have more ref.cursors in report
is there any problem in report performance ?
Can somebody help me ?

One performance consideration I'd do is try to avoid multiple similar queries or even repeats of the same query.
Is
from invoice
where trunc(invoice_date) between :date1 and :date2
and currency_code = '$' -- sometimes 'euro' and so no
and ISSUE_PLACE = 'xx'
and investor_code = :investor_code;
return(v_comm*5.5137);
in main query? Can those Formulas be included/replaced into the main query? Are appropriate Indexes created for the joins?

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 ;)

BI 7 Report performance slow

Hi All.
In BI 7, sales delivery report performance is prety slow. Previously it took 5 mins to execute the report, but now a days it is taking morethan 30 mins. Ithe prob is OLAP time.
Vasu

Hi,
Please run the query in RSRT>Execute and Debug>Display Statistics Data.
and also search there are lots of useful material available in the forum for query performance
Check these threads:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/44/70f4bb1ffb591ae10000000a1553f7/frameset.htm
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/3f66ba90-0201-0010-ac8d-b61d8fd9abe9
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/e0e6a6e3-0601-0010-e6bd-ede96db89ec7
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/cccad390-0201-0010-5093-fd9ec8157802
Thanks-RK

Database migrated from Oracle 10g to 11g Discoverer report performance issu

Hi All,
We are now getting issue in Discoverer Report performance as the report is keep on running when database got upgrade from 10g to 11g.
In database 10g the report is working fine but the same report is not working fine in 11g.
The query i have changed as I have passed the date format TO_CHAR("DD-MON-YYYY" and removed the NVL & TRUNC function from the existing query.
The report is now working fine in Database 11g backhand but when I am using the same query in Discoverer it is not working and report is keep on running.
Please advise.
Regards,

Pl post exact OS, database and Discoverer versions. After the upgrade, have statistics been updated ? Have you traced the Discoverer query to determine where the performance issue is ?
How To Find Oracle Discoverer Diagnostic and Tracing Guides [ID 290658.1]
How To Enable SQL Tracing For Discoverer Sessions [ID 133055.1]
Discoverer 11g: Performance degradation after Upgrade to Database 11g [ID 1514929.1]
HTH
Srini

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

RFFMS200 Report performance query.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for