Very Poor Final Cut Performance

We just upgraded to a Final Cut system from an older Avid system, but it seems to be performing well below expectations. If anyone could make suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated.
Syptoms:
- Dropping frames on virtually every application, from mere audio to standard def.
- a weird flicker when playback stops (the screen goes black then refreshes with expected picture)
- choppy edges on resized windows. (Real-time but it doesn't ask for a render)
- Difference in color between paused video and playing video. (The playback appears to be the "correct" color)
Explination of system:
Apple G5 running mac os 10.4.3
Dual 2.3 Ghz Processor
2.5 gigs memory
ATI X850XT Video Card
Blackmagic's Decklink HD Pro
Blackmagic's HD Link
Final Cut Studio (Final Cut Pro 5)
The boot drive is an internal SATA 250 Gig Drive. This is where the Final Cut Application is.
Our scratch disk is a RAID using 6 external SATA drives controlled by a Tempo card. A Blackmagic Speed test returned 377 MB/sec read and 376 MB/sec write on these drives, so I don't think it's a bandwith issue. Drives are formatted without Journalling enabled.
All drives are new, optimized, and have been verified by Diskwarrior and Apple's Disk Utility.
I have also checked that each of the High performance PCI cards is in the right slot to optimize performance.
Things I've thought about but would like some input-
Is there a software cap that I haven't turned off?
Do I need to set up the Final Cut Application on the RAID Drive? (For quicker access to, say, preference files)
Could this be a symptom of a corrupt preference file?
Powermac G5 Dual 2.3 Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Welcome to the Forum.
I am sure you will be able to work at full throttle very soon. If my suggestion does not help I am sure someone will recognize your issue.
My suggestion is based on seeing pretty much what you describe in someone else's system and so I am offering the fix that worked.
The scenario you describe may reflect the operation of another application that is as hungry for "bandwith" and space as FCP. If you haven't, try turning Spotlight off. I also suggest that you trash the FCP preferences and repair permissions The last two can do no harm.

Similar Messages

Very poor SMB share performance on 3TB time capsule.

Hi,
Is the SMB shares performance on time capsule suposed to be very poor compared to the AFP shares?
My TC will to around 9MB/s transfers using AFP, but on SMB it will do around 1.25MB/s (varies from a few KB/s to peaks of 4MB/s).
I tested both protocols using a ethernet cable connected from my macbook pro directly to the TC.
This is a 3TB time capsule runing firmware 7.6.1, and I did a factory reset before my tests.
Time machine backups were disabled during the tests.
I need SMB for my WDTV media players.

I would not say it is supposed to be.. but you are probably correct that it is very poor.. This issue crops up time and again,,, but not from people running Macs generally.. it is windows that is the problem.
A few things to check.
1. Are the names actually SMB correct?? ie short, no spaces, pure alphanumeric. Both TC name and wireless names if you use wireless.
2. Workgroup set correctly. ie WORKGROUP .. this probably doesn't come up with the Mac but affects most PC connections and possibly the WD TV
3. How old is the TC? If it is an early release Gen 4, you can take it back to 7.5.2 firmware.. frankly much of the trouble was introduced with Lion.. as they changed the SAMBA setup.. I would test from the WDTV.. or a PC.. if it doesn't glitch you are doing better than the Mac can do.. ie the reading in the Mac is pure Lion Lunacy.. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3206668?start=0&tstart=0
One of those apple changes that shows.. they hardly test anything anymore. Do a google search for Lion SMB fix.

Very poor Random IO performance of 24 HDD Mirror-2 CSV on Win2012 R2 (Solved)

We already have a 2 separate Win2012 Mirror-2 Storage Clusters (in production) and had noted that performance was very poor.
We were looking to upgrade to Win2012R2 and storage tiering, we wanted to understand why the storage systems were performing so poorly. So, we have not built out a new storage cluster, with 2 nodes, 3 JBODs and 24 x2TB Seagate ES2 SAS drives.
We have run IOMeter to measure IOPs and the numbers are very poor, regardless of the 'geometries' we choose. Our Write IOPs results for 16KB block (this our typical DB page size) are:
2 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1043
2 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1176
4 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1424
4 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1688
8 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1677
We only tested Write IO because this should be the slowest/worse case IOPs values.
We also tested each HDD individually and they range between 270 and 330 IOPs.
By our math, the IOPs values should be in the range of 3000-3600 == 24 HDDs x IOPs/HDD div by 2 [for mirror-2], but the tested are showing values which are barely 50% of this.
Any assistance/tips would be appreciated.

We already have a 2 separate Win2012 Mirror-2 Storage Clusters (in production) and had noted that performance was very poor.
We were looking to upgrade to Win2012R2 and storage tiering, we wanted to understand why the storage systems were performing so poorly. So, we have not built out a new storage cluster, with 2 nodes, 3 JBODs and 24 x2TB Seagate ES2 SAS drives.
We have run IOMeter to measure IOPs and the numbers are very poor, regardless of the 'geometries' we choose. Our Write IOPs results for 16KB block (this our typical DB page size) are:
2 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1043
2 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1176
4 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1424
4 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1688
8 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1677
We only tested Write IO because this should be the slowest/worse case IOPs values.
We also tested each HDD individually and they range between 270 and 330 IOPs.
By our math, the IOPs values should be in the range of 3000-3600 == 24 HDDs x IOPs/HDD div by 2 [for mirror-2], but the tested are showing values which are barely 50% of this.
Any assistance/tips would be appreciated.
16KB I/Os never touch the whole RAID stripe so that's why you see virtually never performance increase (I;m surprised you actually see any). Try using bigger request size to see would it make any difference. You need multiple workers and deep I/O queues.
What are you I/O Meter settings for test except write size?
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

Very poor 802.11n performance

I'm having difficulties with my time capsule. The performance seems very erratic. Due to me having also having a powerbook I've so far run it in compatible mode.
But the many problems regarding signal strength and a stable throughput struggling to keep above 485 kb/s prompted me to move the Time Capsule closer to the Powerbook so I could hook it up via cable and completely switch to 802.11n 5ghz, connceting the other computers wirelessly.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The performance is laughable, I get a mere 5000 kb/s down (internet based test) whereas I normally (2.4 ghz n/b/g compatibel) i get just under 2 MB/s.
Sending files to and from a connected harddrive is also very very very slow.
What is wrong with the Time Capsule? Is it interference from the (bastards) around me that all have their routers setup to automatically chose channel?
Is my time capsule broken? Is my computer broken? What is wrong?
I'm close to returning the device.

I've just completed an experiment.
Two iMacs side-by-side. One with Airport Utility 5.4.1 ("new"), second with Airport Utility 5.3.1 ("old"). Time Capsule with firmware 7.4.1.
Initial tests for connection Rate:
"New" average about 122
"Old" average about 232 (about twice the Rate)
Installed Airport Utility 5.4.1 on "old" iMac.
New tests for connection Rate:
Both averaging about 116
To me this suggests an effect of the "upgrade" to 5.4.1. But could this be the case? I'm not going to downgrade the firmware quite yet until I rule this and any interference issues out.

Very poor video podcast performance

Computer is older (P3/1000, ATI 9550 video@1280x1024, Win2K, Quicktime 7.1.5.) Yes, I am looking at getting a new computer this summer, after some of the Vista issues are more settled.
I am having major issues trying to play simple video podcasts. Most of these are only 128K, such as Vintage Toons. Playing them results in 90%+ CPU, and only if I keep it original size and only play it directly in Quicktime player or RealPlayer. Playing them in iTunes is impossible, as iTunes itself is a major CPU hog. Doing most anything causes the video to freeze and sputter and even disappear. RealPlayer works best (I can even move the video around while playing without it stopping!) I can't play anything full-screen cleanly.
Quicktime is set to use DirectX, and Windows and DirectX are up to date. The video drivers are Catalyst 5.8. I don't think there is anything in the newer Catalyst drivers that will do much for an entry-level card like this.
This seems to have gotten MUCH worse with the latest iTunes/Quicktime upgrade.
I can play much higher bitrate (1M+) Windows Media files with few if any glitches.
Windows 2000

Most new QuickTime files use H.264 Video codec which cause a strain on older machines and graphic cards (and drivers).
Not much you can do except upgrade your machine.
You may be able to mitigate performance issues by setting QuickTime Preferences to not use DirectX (QuickTime Control Panel).

I can not to get a trial premiere pro to see what is this.I love very much Final cut pro and think

I had a trial adobe only 7 days and it stoped to work.I can not lean this complicated video editor.I saw many videos 0n youtube how to work in this program but not working in trial adobe- for example- naration!I need very mach to make naration! And could not used in adobe trial.Now it is not working!! only 7 days I used adobe and not workin not open! Some times I import my videos,in many times I can not to import and can not drag to timeline (it broken trial adobe?)
I don't know what to do
help me to get other video editor - vegas,people say that it is eazy to edit there
Why you have not a russian version of adobe ?

OK.
That doesn't really answer the question, though. Is it just not working, or is it specifically tell you the trial has expired?

Very slow Final cut studio Install???

Man It seems I have been installing this FCS2 fro hours now , is this normal?

Installing from DVDs is slow, especially when there's so much stuff to install.
I make DMGs of my install discs and store them on our server, then when I install I mount the necessary disk image(s) and fire off the install. It is amazing how much faster it goes.

Would I still be able to fun Final Cut Pro with no problem with the new 13"

My old MBP has "NVIDIA GeForce 860M GT with 128MB" and the new 13-inch MBP has "NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics" I don't really know what "GT" means, but the more expensive MBP's listed have it, so I'm guessing it's pretty good. I was wondering if I'd still be able to fun Final Cut Pro quickly if I got the new 13-inch MBP.
Back in 2007, the guy at the Apple store said I'd have to get a MBP instead of a MB if I wanted to fun FCP correctly, and now both the MB and MBP use the same graphics chip, so I'm wondering if FCP will still function correctly on the new 13-inch MBP?

Eric wrote:
Incorrect about what? I never made any statements, just questions. According to the Apple store, the Macbook and 13-inch Macbook Pro both use the same chip, which is the only statement I made. And which is why I'm wondering if the new 13-inch MBP can even handle FCP since the MB can't (according to the guy in the Apple store).
Actually, your original question was formed as part of a statement:
now both the MB and MBP use the same graphics chip, so I'm wondering if FCP will still function >correctly on the new 13-inch MBP?
And that's the part that BoyHowdy pointed out that you are "a little incorrect" about. While it's true that they both have an onboard 9400M graphics chip, you are overlooking the fact that the 15" & 17" MBPs also have the much more powerful and dedicated 9600M GT graphics card. This is not an insignificant difference. Final Cut Pro, not to be confused with Final Cut Express (not you, others have confused the two), requires a dedicated card which the 15" & 17" MBPs have in the form of the additional 9600M GT, but the 13" still lacks.
The specs on the Final Cut Pro page are a little confusing because while it says it *will not work* with integrated graphics, it specifically refers to Intel, and does not mention Nvidia. However, it still says it requires an AGP or PCI Express card, which the 9400M is not.
My feeling is that even if it runs, the performance of Final Cut Pro on that system will be unacceptable, and will ultimately drive you mad. It really pushes the graphics systems hard, and despite their vast improvement over the pathetic Intel onboard graphics systems, the 9400M is still pretty anemic for high end work. You're better off saving a little more money and getting the low end 15" model. Not to mention, the extra screen real estate makes a huge difference with the very crowded Final Cut Pro UI.

ZBook 17 g2 - poor DPC Latency performance when running from z Turbo Drive PCIe SSD

I'm setting up a new zBook 17 g2 and am getting very poor DPC latency performance (> 6000 us) when running from the PCIe SSD. I've re-installed the OS (Win 7 64 bit) on both the PCIe SSD and a SATA HDD and the DPC latency performance is fine when running from the HDD (50 - 100 us) but horrible when running from the PCIe SSD (> 6000 us). I've updated the BIOS and tried every combination of driver and component enabling/disabling I can think of. The DPC latency is extremely high from the initial Windows install with no drivers installed. Adding drivers seems to have no effect on the DPC latency. Before purchasing the laptop I found this review: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-HP-ZBook-17-E9X11AA-ABA-Workstation.106222.0.html where the DPC latency measurement (middle of the page) looks OK. Of course, this is the prior version of the laptop and I believe it does not have the PCIe SSD. Combining that with the fact that I get fine performance when running from the HDD I am led to believe that the PCIe SSD is the cause of the problem. Has anyone found a solution to this problem? As it stands right now my zBook is not usable for digital audio work when running from the PCIe SSD. But it cost me a lot of money so I'd sure like to use it...! Thanks, rgames

Hi mooktank, No solution yet but, as of about six weeks ago, HP at least acknowledged that it's a problem (finally). I reproduced it perfectly on another zBook 17 g2 and another PCIe SSD in the same laptop and HP was able to reproduce the problem as well. So the problem is clearly in the BIOS or with some driver related to the PCIe SSD. It could also be with the firmware in the drive, itself, but I can't find any other PCIe drives in the 60 mm form factor. So there's no way to see if a differnt type of drive would fix the problem. My suspicion is that it's related to the PCIe sleep states - those are known to cause exactly these types of problems because the drive takes quick "naps" to save power and there's a delay when it is told to wake back up. That delay causes a delay in the audio buffer that results in pops/crackles/stutters that would never be noticed doing other tasks like video editing or CAD work . So it's a problem specific to folks who need low-latency audio performance (very few apps require low latency audio - video editing, for example, uses huge buffers with relatively high latency). A lot of desktops offer a BIOS option to disable those sleep states but no such option exists in HP's BIOS for that laptop. In theory you can do it from within Windows but it doesn't have an effect on my system. That might be one of those options that Windows allows you to change but that actually has no effect. One workaround is to disable CPU throttling. That makes the CPU run at full speed all the time and, I believe, also disables the PCIe and other sleep states. When I disable CPU throttling, DPC latency goes back to normal. However, the CPU is then running full-speed all the time so your battery life basically goes to nothing and the laptop gets *very* hot. Clearly that is not necessary because the laptop runs fine from the SATA SSD. HP needs to fix the latency problem associated with the PCIe drive. The next logical step is to provide a BIOS update that provides a way to disable the PCIe sleep states without disabling CPU throttling, like on many desktop systems. The bad news is that HP tech support is not very technical, so it takes forever for them to figure out what I'm talking about. It took a couple months for them to start using the DPC Latency checker. Hopefully there will be a fix at some point... in the meantime, I hope that HP sends me a check for spending so much time educating their techs on how computers work. And for countless hours lost re-installing different OSes only to show that the performance is exactly the same as shown in the DPC Latency checker. rgames

Final Cut Pro/GY-HD111E import problems?

Final Cut Pro/GY-HD111E import problems?
With a brand new Mac Pro and very latest Final Cut Studio complete with updates I'm having a little problem trying to import footage directly from a JVC GY-HD111E (yes I'm in PAL land, UK) via FireWire into FCP.
Footage is 720p/25p and timeline is set up in FCP that way.
I'm doing a 'capture now'. The first clip I'm trying to import is about 45 minutes long with no cuts/breaks whatsoever.
What happens is after about 60 seconds or so, it FCP automatically breaks the clip for no reason and starts a new one, trouble is, when it does this I lose about 4 seconds of footage at that point.
It continues to break clips randomly, sometimes after 40 seconds or so, sometimes after 95 seconds, but usually between 30 seconds and 2 minutes and each time it starts a new clip I lose between 1 and 6 seconds.
As I say, there are zero breaks or cuts in this clip, I have a 45 minute clip that was shot in one take, not even a pause anywhere.
Is this a JVC issue or a Final Cut issue?
It's a pain as it simply means I can't import my 9 hours of footage hence I can't get on with this project.
Any ideas why this phenomenon is happening?
Thanks guys.

I mean I get the same errors.
Let me explain again.
There are NO start/stop/pauses in this clip.
I'm trying to import just ONE clip with no breaks, again, there are NO start/stop/pause, it is one continuous clip of 15 minutes duration.
The JVC creates some sort of errors at the Firewire output stage, it drops frames or other errors, FCP gets confused and creates a new clip, even though it is the same clip, but due to the GoP structure, it looses a few seconds too hence I can't import the footage as I keep loosing bits here and there mid clip. It is randam, every 30 to 100 seconds or so it will do this.

Final Cut 5

I had FCP 5 on my system. I replaced it with the older version FCP HD 4.5 But it wont open. I want to restore my FCP 5 but I only have the original serial Number and can not find my lost CD. How do I restore this? Can I download from the net.
The olderwersion, I have all the original Cds (Production Suite).

Without the CDs, it is not possible to install the software. There is no downloadable version of FCP 5.
fwiw - If you are running Lion, FCP 5 won't install or run. You need FCS 3 (aka FCP7) or the new and very different Final Cut X.
x

Final Cut Pro working very sluggish, any suggestions ?

Hello everybody, I've been using Final Cut Pro for a very long time now. Although I've had this problem lately, when the smooth cam analyzation finishes. Final Cut pro ( the Video which was analyzed successfully ), starts working very slow. Something so small as a cut even take like 30 seconds to complete. I'm using a MacBook Pro 17" 3.06 ghz, 8gb 1067 MHz DDR3 ram and connected to a Firewire 800 hard drive that has 7,200 rpm rotational speed. I've tried trashing the preferences and reinstalling Final Cut ( I have the latest version ), but nothing helps. Maybe I need to render all of the video or something, does anyone have any suggestions or any kind of help ? ( Thank You ahead of time ).

The only way that would work out is if you ran exactly the versions that were made for old PowerBooks. Anything newer may require Intel and not run, or will strain the poor old G4 CPU.
Your needs have to be modest, too, because the problem with older music and video software is that they are not current as far as formats and codecs for the Web. If you want to output H.264, the current standard for YouTube/Flash video, older software may not support it, and in addition, H.264 is processor-intensive and is tailor-made for today's multi-core, 2+ GHz processors. It will overwhelm a G4. A PowerBook G4 can barely play YouTube videos.
More perspective: The PowerBooks worked great for miniDV format editing. In other words, 480i SD/standard definition video in use from the late 1990s to the late 2000s. If that is all you want to do, edit tape from an old miniDV camera to SD output, then OK.
But if you want to edit today's HD video, whether 720p from a snapshot camera/iPhone 4 or 1080p from a DSLR, the PowerBook and the software for it will either not recognize AVCHD/H.264, or it will slow the PowerBook to a dead crawl.
I'm in agreement with the above: Intel Macs have been out for so many years that getting a used one is a much better deal than a dead-end PowerBook. And I loved (still love) my PowerBooks.

Lack of performance in Final Cut Pro

As I am pretty new to the whole video editing scene on the Mac, I have a performance question for those who are somewhat more familiar with FCS(2).
I have a MBP Core Duo 2Ghz with 2GB of ram and 100GB@7200rpm (around 8GB free), and I am experiencing lags, lots of rendering and framedrops whilst capturing. Is this normal? Am I doing something wrong? I have a bunch of other apps open like iTunes, iCal, Safari and Dreamweaver, however when I use Final Cut the only app that's busy is FC. There's also plenty of (even unused) memory when I look at the activity monitor. How come I still get the message FC encountered dropped frames?
Another thing is playback. A simple speed alteration (for time lapse) gets FC all frustrated; it will only run smoothly when I render it first. It will play, but not hold a constant framerate. I find this strange, because if FC is protesting with this simple procedure, I don't even wanna know what it does once some filters are applied. Besides, a friend of mine with Premiere Pro and a single core processor can in fact run the time lapse at full framerate. No problems at all.
So my question is: is this kind of poor performance normal on a machine as described earlier? Or am I doing something wrong here?
If it's really not that special, I'd rather use Premiere Pro than FCS. Unless someone can give me a reason why PP can do the same thing, but then smoothly on an inferior machine.

First off, if you keep comparing programs and platforms hoping one will work like the other you will never be happy and may as well go back to Premiere right away.
That being said, there is the right and recommended way to do these things and then there is the way that works for you.
Some people claim to be able to edit just fine with a USB2 drive connection, what they are editing and how hard it's pushing the drive I don't know, I just know that I can't afford the problems and therefore don't do it.
Some people use their system drive as a scratch drive and get along fine. I've done this myself in a pinch and it's worked well enough, but again, I don't make it a habit because I want to avoid problems that are easy to avoid.
Some people have no issues when looping a deck or camera through the FW drive in order to capture. I've tried it and it's hit and miss. Depends somewhat on the deck or camera you use. Canon seems to have more issues in this regard than others. But again, a $50.00 card can eliminate the problem altogether so the decision is an easy one for me... get the card.
The point is, you can spend time trying these various methods, or you can do it the recommended way from the start, but wanting it to work in a certain way because that's the way something else works is not going to get you editing.
rh

Very disappointed with G5 and Final Cut Pro

At work we bought a G5 last year for Final Cut Pro to edit plain DV video downloaded from a MiniDV camcorder via Firewire. The machine has 4gig memory, 6800 graphics, and is running FCP 5.0 with all of the Software Updates installed. The G5 is supposed to replace a much older PC that is running Adobe Premiere 2.0 on Windows XP. Even though the PC only has a single Pentium 4 CPU and older ATI X800 graphics, it does FAR more real-time effects than Final Cut Pro does on the G5. Why is this?? Almost everything I do, from titles to minor effects will appear instantly on Premiere Pro, real-time, no rendering needed. But almost everything I do on the G5 will show me a big red X until it has rendered. If I add a title, I still have to wait for it to render. If I add a light blur effect, I still have to wait for it to render. This is very annyoing and very depressing, we spent a lot of money on the G5. In reality, at least for us, it is slower than the older PC it is supposed to replace forcing us to spend a lot of time staring at those big red X'es while Final Cut Pro renders.
Are we doing something wrong? Or is this the case with all dual processor G5s running Final Cut Pro 5.0?? Is there anything we can do to speed up rendering or enable actual real-time effects/titles?

Welcome to the family.
Are we doing something wrong? Or is this the case with all dual processor G5s running Final Cut Pro 5.0?? Is there anything we can do to speed up rendering or enable actual real-time effects/titles? < </div>
Simple failure to understand your new tools. Open the manual, run the tutorials. Study carefully the sections on how to set up all of your preferences for DV. It's easy and when you're done you're going to feel really silly.
If your company intends to make money with FCP you must invest time to understand what you bought since you bought it without bothering to test drive FCP on a G5. If you liked Premiere on Windows, you may never enjoy using FCP on Macintosh. The switch can be devastating. You could be one of those poor souls who just doesn't get it. Turn your system over to a more open minded person on your staff.
bogiesan

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

Very Poor Final Cut Performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for