The performance of the tables in the PSAPSTABD is poor

Hi:
After I reorganized the tablepsace "PSAPSTABD" with datafile , I
found that the performance for visiting the tables in the PSAPSTABD is
very poor , and the tcode of maintaining the custom master data and
material master data is very slow. The tools for the reorganization is
SAPDBA 6.40 and the type of the reorganization is offline.Why? How can I solve it?
THANKS.
sap envirement: aix 5.3 + oracle 9.2.0.7 + sap r/3 46c sr2
sap kernel : 46d_ext
dbatools: I used dbatools 640 to overwrite the dbatools 620 and "sapdba" to reorg the tablepsace.

Hy,
is not easy understand the problem by your analysys...
try to analyze a single trx that you consider very slow , and through st04(oracle session) let me know in which table the trx remains in hang or in waiting...then you should see the cost estimated for the query that is doing the trx. i mean that could be an index not correctly configured....
Could be also a problem of table statistic..did you regenerate the statistic after the reorg of tablespace?
let me know also database and tablespace dimension ...
Bye bye
Nick

Similar Messages

Why is the search so poor?

Why is the search so poor? The first page had nothing useful when I typed:
owner change in finder
Google would do much better.
Xserve Other OS

No - I just expected it to be as good as most other searches, ie first return full hits and then partial hits as per Google and many others. I don't want to restrict it to a phrase but I expect the phrase hits to come first followed by hits for all words and then hits for less words - it is 5 years out of date.

Why when i create a collage to export to photobox is the quality so poor

why when i create a JPG collage to export to photobox is the quality so poor?

The only possible answer to such a generalized question is, "Because." You'll have to explain how you are creating the collage and the steps you have taken in order for us to provide you with any suggestions.

SonyAVCHD video looks great in iMovie11 or iDVD7.1.2. When I burn a DVD it's terrible. If I freeze frame I see squares. The picture has poor contrast. I've viewed DVD on my 6-year-old, 24 in. intel 2.16 GHz iMac, and on TV. Help!

I just bought a very good quality Sony AVCHD camcorder. I also just upgraded my computer from Tiger to Snow Leapord. My iMac is a 6-year-old, 2.16GHz Intel 2 Duo, with a 24 inch screen and 3GB Ram.
My Sony camcorder HD video looks great in iMovie11 and in iDVD7.1.2., but when I burn a DVD "professional" it looks terrible. If I look at a freeze frame on the DVD I see image made-up of squares. The picture has poor contrast. It looks as bad as poor quality VHS. Do I need to get a new iMac to make this work? Is it possible to make a sharp, clear DVD from AVCHD footage with a 6-year-old iMac like mine?

That thread helped for a time. But now it seems as though my computer is back to slow again. But, some of the jargon is over my head as well. Not sure I knew quoite everything they were talking about. But thanks a lot for that, it helped I probably just need to reread it and follow the instructions again. Thanks so much.

I have created a slideshow in iPhoto and then used iDVD to burn the sideshow to a DVD. The quality of the DVD is poor. Any ideas?

I have created a slideshow in iPhoto and then burnt it to DVD using iDVD. The quality of the slideshow on the DVD is poor. Any ideas?

Poor in what way? iDVD creates standard definition displays of 640 x 480 pixels and will not look as sharp as the orignal photos in the iPhoto slideshow on a Mac monitor.
OT

How to improve Query performance on large table in MS SQL Server 2008 R2

I have a table with 20 million records. What is the best option to improve query performance on this table. Is partitioning the table into filegroups is a best option or splitting the table into multiple smaller tables?

Hi bala197164,
First, I want to inform that both to partition the table into filegroups and split the table into multiple smaller tables can improve the table query performance, and they are fit for different situation. For example, our table have one hundred columns and
some columns are not related to this table object directly (for example, there is a table named userinfo to store user information, it has columns address_street, address_zip,address_ province columns, at this time, we can create a new table named as Address,
and add a foreign key in userinfo table references Address table), under this situation, by splitting a large table into smaller, individual tables, queries that access only a fraction of the data can run faster because there is less data to scan. Another
situation is our table records can be grouped easily, for example, there is a column named year to store information about product release date, at this time, we can partition the table into filegroups to improve the query performance. Usually, we perform
both of methods together. Additionally, we can add index to table to improve the query performance. For more detail information, please refer to the following document:
Partitioning:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178148.aspx
CREATE INDEX (Transact-SQL):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188783.aspx
TechNet
Subscriber Support
If you are
TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedback
here.
Allen Li
TechNet Community Support

Performance on huge tables

Hi,
I have an application that should contain 100 million records.
Each record has a primary key.
The application fetches a row using the record primary key.
Can anyone tell me what is the problem when using such a big table?
What is the performance of the index on 100 million records?
What is the performance of updates?
Thanks
dyahav

user10952094 wrote:
Can anyone tell me what is the problem when using such a big table?
What is the performance of the index on 100 million records?
What is the performance of updates?It is not about the size of the table.
It is about the size of the I/O.
In other words, how efficient the I/O paths are for getting to the required rows. A small table can cause worse performance problems than a table 10x its size due to the way the smaller table has been defined and is used.
Simple (real world) example:
SQL> select count(*) from daily_xxxxx;
COUNT(*)
2255362806
Elapsed: 00:00:12.03
SQL>Same database, a select against the data dictionary (containing only a couple of rows in comparison):
SQL> select count(*) from all_objects;
COUNT(*)
50908
Elapsed: 00:00:49.17The difference is caused by the amount and nature of I/O that was done - not by the sizes of the tables.
There are however certain features in Oracle that can be used to effectively scale large tables for performance... and make data management significantly easier. The Partitioning Option is an Oracle Enterprise Edition feature that can be considered as an essential, if not a mandatory feature, for effectively dealing and scaling with very large tables (VLT).
However, such a feature aside - the same rules for effective performance for a small table apply to effective performance on large tables. So do not treat a VLT differently. The fundamentals for performance and scalability do not change.

Performance difference between tables and materialized views

hi ,
I created a materialized view on a query that involves partition table in it.
When i used the same query and created a table out of it <create table xyz as select * from (the query)> ,the table got created quickly.
So does that mean performance wise creating table is faster than creating/refreshing the materialized view ?or is that due to the refresh method i use ?Currently i use a complete refresh

I created a materialized view on a query that involves partition table in it.
When i used the same query and created a table out of it <create table xyz as select * from (the query)> ,the table got created quickly.
So does that mean performance wise creating table is faster than creating/refreshing the materialized view ?or is that due to the refresh method i use ?Currently i use a complete refresh Well, for starters, if you created the materialized view first and then the standard table, the data for the second one has already been fetched recently and so will reduce your I/O due to caching, and will therefore be quicker. There are also other factors such as the materialized view creating other internal bits that are required to allow for refreshes to be done quickly, such as the primary key etc which you haven't created on your second creation.
What you have shown is that two completely different statements running at different times, appear to operate with different speed. It is not a comparison of whether the materialized view is slower or quicker than the create table statement.

How to perform functions between tables on the same sheet in Numbers?

I have been working in Numbers creating a worksheet. On one sheet I have multipule tables, with one table it has functions that uses cells from other tables.
When I first created it, it worked fine with 3 tables. Now that I am trying to add more cells from other tables as functions in the main table, it is not working properly. It's not even highlighting the added cell in the function as it did when I created it. Can someone explain what has changed for this to happen.

Irnstlgld,
In Numbers'09, when you point and click on the same cell for the second (third, etc.) time in the same expression (formula), you must hold down the Command key as you do it. Otherwise the subsequent references to that cell won't register. I know you believe that the problem began with adding more than three tables, but I'll bet that the actual problem is with the multiple occurrences of the same cell in one expression.
Just remember to hold down the Command key for additional references to a given cell and you should be OK.
Jerry

Performance of the query is poor

Hi All,
This is Prasad. I have a problem with the query it is taking more time to retrieve the data from the Cube. In the query they are using a Variable of type Customer Exit. The Cube is not at compressed. I think the issue with the F fact table is due to the high number of table partitions (requests) that it has to select from. If I compress the cube, the performance of the query is increased r not? Is there any alternative for improving the performance of the query. Somebody suggested Result set query, iam not aware of this technique if u know let me know.
Thanks in advance

Hi Prasad,
Query performance will depend on many factors like
1. Aggregates
2. Compression of requests
3. Query read mode setting
4. Cache memory setting
5. By Creating BI Accelerator Indexes on Infocubes
6. Indexes
Proposing aggregates to improve query performance:
First try to execute the query in RSRT on which u required to build aggregates. Check how much time it is taking to execute.....and whether it is required to build aggregate on this querry?? To get this information, Goto SE11> Give tabl name RSDDSTAT_DM in BI7.0 or RSDDSTAT in BW3.x.> Disply -> Contnts-> Give from date and to date values as today, user name as Ur user name, and give the query name
--> execute.
Now u'll get a list with fields like Object anme(Report anme), Time read, Infoprovider name(Multiprovider), Partprovider name (Cube), Aggregate name... etc. If the time read is less than 100,000,000 (100 sec) is acceptable. If the time read is more than 100 sec then it is recommended to create Aggregates for that query to increase performance. Keep in mind this time read.
Again goto RSRT> Give query name> Execute+Debug-->
A popup will come in that select the check box display aggregates found--> continue. If any aggregates or exist for that
query it will display first if u press on continue button, it will display from which cube which fields are coming it will display...try to copy this list of objects on which aggregate can be created into one text file...
then select that particular cube in RSA1>context>Maintain Aggregates-> Create by own> click on create aggregate button on top left side> Give discription of the aggregate>continue> take first object from list and fclick on find button in aggregates creation screen> give the object name and search... drag and drop that object into aggregate name right side (Drag and drop all the fields like this into aggregate).---->
Activate the aggregate--> it will take some time once the activation finishes --> make sure that aggregate is in switch on mode.
Try to xecute the query from RSRT again and find out the time read and compare this with first time read. If it is less tahn first time read then u can propose this aggregate to incraese the performance of the query.
I hope this will help u... go through the below links to know about aggregates more clear.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/10/244538780fc80de10000009b38f842/frameset.htm
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/3f66ba90-0201-0010-ac8d-b61d8fd9abe9
Follow this thread for creation of BIA Indexes:
Re: BIA Creation
Hopr this helps...
Regards,
Ramki.

Is there any way to fix the flash and poor photo quality after iOS 7 upgrade?

Hi everybody,
Since upgrading to the new iOS 7 on my iPhone 5 ... I have experienced poor photo (grainy) and the flash works when it feels like it... Is there any way
possible to revert back at least on the camera settings or is there a fix that can be downloaded to solve this problem? I take and use my camera a lot on my iphone5 and for me to have this problem it has made me really regret ever upgrading and I am starting to lose my faith in Apple products. I have searched the entire web and it appears there are a ton of people experiencing this same problem.!!!!

Try This...
Close All Open Apps... Sign Out of your Account... Perform a Reset... Try again...
Reset ( No Data will be Lost )
Press and Hold the Sleep/Wake Button and the Home Button at the Same Time...
Wait for the Apple logo to Appear...
Usually takes about 15 - 20 Seconds... ( But can take Longer...)
Release the Buttons..
If no joy... Try a Restore...
1: Connect the device to Your computer and open iTunes.
2: If the device appears in iTunes, select and click Restore on the Summary pane.
Restoring > http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1414
Make sure you have the Latest Version of iTunes (v11.1.5) Installed on your computer
iTunes free download from www.itunes.com/download

Sony Z1 Compact... why is the camera so poor? Comparison shots within.

The Good...
I picked up a Sony Z1 Compact the other day, and am so far absolutely in love woth it. The speed and responsiveness are fantastic, the build quality rivals that of the iPhone, and the size is just perfection.
The Bad...
But... I am VERY dissappointed with the camera and its poor performance. 80% of the photos I take with my phone are while on a night out with friends, usually in bars or other more dimly lit places than broad daylight. In Auto mode, photos taken in the average pub lightning are unuseable,m and look so artifical as to completely destroy any detail in the faces of the people I snap. I have also experimented with manual settings, but still the quakity is just plain poor. In fact, mny Samsung Galaxy S III blows it out of the water in this regard, images in similar conditions are much superior.
The Ugly...
So why is this camera, a camera that uses what is theoretically a high-quality imaging unit used by point and shoot cameras, so bad in everything except broad daylight?
The answer according to not only my observations, but the observations of many professional websites who reviewed the Z1 series, is seems to be that Sony are purposefully and inexplicably messing with the final images by forcing huge amounts of processing on them. This takes a natural image, messes with the colours and tone, and then proceeds to crush any detail.
Here are some samples of what I mean, taken with Superior Auto:
Sample 1: Z1 Compact
A close-up portrait shot...
Look at how artificial that image looks... it's like someone applied a strange kind of gaussian blur tool in photoshop.
Sample 2 - Z1 Compact
A group photo...
Here again, in what was one of the better photos that I took, we see the find detail is very poor.. at full size it looks horrible pixellated, and the colours severely washed out. The blacks are also severely crushed.
Sample 3 - Z1 Compact
Here is a shot that should in theory be detailed and natural looking. A guy near a wall in better light, with the camera held perfectly still.
Again, a horrible image... bad detail, visible artifacting, washed out colours.
Sample 4 - Z1 Compact
In addition, using the flash causes severe light pollution on the final image, so much so that the bottom half of the photo I take has a very noticeable purpley bluish haze on it.
Look at the level of bleed entering the scene from the flash below the lens. And look at the dreadful overall image quality... the detail is simply shockingly bad. Like a camera phone from years ago.
Samsung Galaxy S III Comparisons...
And here we have some comparison photos with a Samsung SIII, also taken in a dimply lit pub:
Sample 1 - Samsung Galaxy S III
Look at the difference... detail is preserved, the image appears natural, and colour tones are reasonably natural. It's a great shot.
Sample 2 - Samsung Galaxy S III
Again, here we see that the photo is much cleaner... flash lights up the subjkects as well as can be expected considering the size and power, and the colours and detail are preserved, including in the surrounding environment where the coloured lights at the top are also visible.
Sample 3 . Samsung Galaxy S III
And finally, a close-up portrai-style shot...
Again, not the easiest of conditions for a phont, but overall detail is good, the face is clearly visible, and the photo looks clean and detailed as you could hope for in the circumstances.
WINNER: SAMSUNG GALAXY S III
Conclusion...
Sorry Sony, but this level of imaging is just not acceptable on a premium device with such a high spec sensor in it. I have had better results fron devices that are 2-3 years old. Oh yes, and that's including the video camera mode which has no 24p or 60p options... come on Sony, there is a Snapdragon 800 SOC in this phone, use it.
I really hope you are going to take a serious look at this and fix it.

Wow thanks guys... it seems a LOT of people have noticed this issue. I also saw one guy with exactly the same problem as me with the flash http://www.android-hilfe.de/7156334-post40.html
The question is: how on earth did none of the Sony designers see this issue? It seems to me that someone must have seen it, but too late in the design process, so they just kept it like this and are going to pretend ignorance.
I just did the same test as inside-handy.de where I cover the flash completely and then take a picture, and the light bleeds very badly into the lens, so I guess my phone is badly affected.
I do not expect such a badly designed camera and flash system on such a premium device, and we cannot be expected to live with such a fatal flaw in a phone which is marketed as a pure camera phone.
EDIT - It seems the press are now aware and will be following this up... hopefully Sony will make a response soon when they see the overwhelming evidence http://www.inside-handy.de/news/30330-led-erzeugt-farbiges-leuchten-auf-bildern-sony-xperia-z1-compa...

Bridge cs6 why do the photos have poor quality in full screen preview ?

Hi
windows 7 64bit , bridge cs6
well i load 20mp or 22mp pixel photos , raw and jpg
i select the images i want to watch and with the spacebar i go in full screen preview
but in fit to screen they look bad , i mean with no crips , no details
but in full screen preview 100% the photos look great
why ?
is there an option to watch them in fit to screen , full screen preview with a great quality
thanks

mantralightroom wrote:
why is it this option disabled? do the generate monitor sized previews increase a lot the cache a lot!
Potentially, yes. The standard Preview is 1024 pixels, longest size. Some people (like Omke) have displays 2560 pixels longest side, potentially increasing file size by over 500%.

Why is the photo quality poor when view on TV?

Before I burn a slideshow on a dvd I check to see the quality of my images and they look perfect on my mac however, the quality is greatly reduced when I watch a photo slideshow on a TV. This has occurred for one than 1 tv also (all pretty new).
Any suggestions as to why this is happening?
Thanks.
Dorian

Are you using high resolution images? If so, try lowering the resolution. Or try an app that specializes in iDvd slideshows.
http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php
http://www.boinx.com/fotomagico/overview/
Good luck.

Why is the camera so poor?

I am really disappointed with the poor quality of photo's - yes I know all about the wise crack comments about the iPad not being a camera BUT the adverts would lead you to believe the camera is wonderful and it most definitely is not.

No arguement. Its fine for facetime, and facebook, and casual photos, but not really good for serious photos. Light is quality in the digital world, and you will find that outdoor daylight pictures aren't bad, but they are certainly not good.
If you are a serious photo person, use your existing camera, and import the photos.
Safe bet that the next pad, whenever it comes, will have an upgraded camera. I upgraded from a pad 1 to a pad 2, and a mediocre camera was a huge improvement from no camera, but there is another step ahead.

The performance of the tables in the PSAPSTABD is poor

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for