Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?

Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin

Similar Messages

How Can I Improve Mavericks Performance (much slower than 10.8)?

When I upgraded to OS 10.9, I immediately saw a significant slower performance than with 10.8 or 10.7 (which I had been using for about two years). One big difference was a delay with the boot disc thrashing a lot when I started the computer and when I launched any app. That is, after starting my Mac Pro (2008), once the windows are all visible, there is a 30+ second delay (with the boot disc thrashing a lot) before it responds. A very similar thing happens when I launch any app. For example, when I launch iPhoto, after the photos appear, it takes 30+ seconds before it reponds to any mouse clicks. Under 10.7 and 10.8, there was about a 5 second delay (which I always thought was Faces doing its thing). This disc thrashing and delay before the app will respond happens with every app (Word, iMovie, Disc Utility, etc.) These delays never occured under 10.7 or 10.8.
A few people on the Apple Support forum suggested I run EtreCheck and remove various apps that they said could cause a problem with the OS. I removed every app they suggested, but I do not see any difference in performance. In my opinion, OS 10.9 has implemented something new that is causing my Mac Pro to run much slower.
I just ran a Safe Boot (using shift key while starting). I don't see any difference.
I would appreciate any advice.
EtreCheck Results:
Hardware Information:
          Mac Pro (Early 2008)
          Mac Pro - model: MacPro3,1
          2 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon CPUs: 8 cores
          8 GB RAM
Video Information:
          NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT - VRAM: 512 MB
Audio Plug-ins:
          BluetoothAudioPlugIn: Version: 1.0
          AirPlay: Version: 1.9
          AppleAVBAudio: Version: 2.0.0
          iSightAudio: Version: 7.7.3
System Software:
          OS X 10.9 (13A603) - Uptime: 0 days 1:57:13
Disk Information:
          ST3750640AS P disk0 : (750.16 GB)
                    EFI (disk0s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
                    Macintosh HD (disk0s2) /: 749.3 GB (299.96 GB free)
                    Recovery HD (disk0s3) <not mounted>: 650 MB
          ST31000340AS disk2 : (1 TB)
                    EFI (disk2s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
                    Movies&DVDs (disk2s2) /Volumes/Movies&DVDs: 999.86 GB (140.99 GB free)
          ST31000340AS disk1 : (1 TB)
                    EFI (disk1s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
                    OS10.6 (disk1s2) /Volumes/OS10.6: 999.86 GB (882.64 GB free)
USB Information:
          Apple, Inc. Keyboard Hub
                    Apple, Inc Apple Keyboard
          NEC Corporation USB2.0 Hub Controller
                    Canon MX850 series
          Apple Inc. Bluetooth USB Host Controller
FireWire Information:
          Apple Computer, Inc. iSight 200mbit - 400mbit max
Thunderbolt Information:
Kernel Extensions:
Problem System Launch Daemons:
Problem System Launch Agents:
Launch Daemons:
          [loaded] com.adobe.fpsaud.plist
          [loaded] com.microsoft.office.licensing.helper.plist
Launch Agents:
User Launch Agents:
          [loaded] com.adobe.AAM.Updater-1.0.plist
          [loaded] com.adobe.ARM.[...].plist
          [loaded] com.adobe.ARM.[...].plist
User Login Items:
          iTunes
          Mail
3rd Party Preference Panes:
          Flash Player
          Flip4Mac WMV
          Growl
          Java
          Perian
Internet Plug-ins:
          AdobePDFViewer.plugin
          AdobePDFViewerNPAPI.plugin
          Default Browser.plugin
          Flash Player.plugin
          FlashPlayer-10.6.plugin
          Flip4Mac WMV Plugin.plugin
          googletalkbrowserplugin.plugin
          JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
          npgtpo3dautoplugin.plugin
          o1dbrowserplugin.plugin
          QuickTime Plugin.plugin
          RealPlayer Plugin.plugin
          Silverlight.plugin
User Internet Plug-ins:
          CitrixOnlineWebDeploymentPlugin.plugin
Bad Fonts:
          None
Time Machine:
          Skip System Files: NO
          Auto backup: YES
          Volumes being backed up:
                    Macintosh HD: Disk size: 749.3 GB Disk used: 449.33 GB
                    Movies&DVDs: Disk size: 999.86 GB Disk used: 858.87 GB
          Destinations:
                    Data [Network] (Last used)
                    Total size: 3 TB
                    Total number of backups: 79
                    Oldest backup: 2012-12-18 07:58:20 +0000
                    Last backup: 2013-11-30 01:06:05 +0000
                    Size of backup disk: Too small
                              Backup size 3 TB < (Disk used 1.31 TB X 3)
Top Processes by CPU:
              13%          mds
               1%          WindowServer
               1%          EtreCheck
               0%          ocspd
               0%          fontd
               0%          syncdefaultsd
               0%          aosnotifyd
Top Processes by Memory:
          549 MB             iTunes
          385 MB             mds_stores
          319 MB             com.apple.MediaLibraryService
          139 MB             com.apple.IconServicesAgent
          131 MB             Mail
          106 MB             com.apple.WebKit.WebContent
          82 MB              soagent
          82 MB              Safari
          74 MB              PhotoStreamAgent
          74 MB              WindowServer
Virtual Memory Statistics:
          3.56 GB            Free RAM
          3.38 GB            Active RAM
          265 MB             Inactive RAM
          821 MB             Wired RAM
          433 MB             Page-ins
          0 B                Page-outs

First, back up all data immediately unless you already have a current backup. If you can't back up, stop here. Do not take any of the steps below.
Step 1
This diagnostic procedure will query the log for messages that may indicate a system issue. It changes nothing, and therefore will not, in itself, solve your problem.
If you have more than one user account, these instructions must be carried out as an administrator.
Triple-click anywhere in the line below on this page to select it:
syslog -k Sender kernel -k Message CReq 'GPU |hfs: Ru|I/O e|find tok|n Cause: -|NVDA\(|pagin|timed? ?o' | tail | open -ef
Copy the selected text to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination command-C.
Launch the Terminal application in any of the following ways:
☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Terminal in the icon grid.
Paste into the Terminal window (command-V). I've tested these instructions only with the Safari web browser. If you use another browser, you may have to press the return key.
The command may take a noticeable amount of time to run. Wait for a new line ending in a dollar sign (“$”) to appear.
A TextEdit window will open with the output of the command. Normally the command will produce no output, and the window will be empty. If the TextEdit window (not the Terminal window) has anything in it, stop here and post it — the text, please, not a screenshot. The title of the TextEdit window doesn't matter, and you don't need to post that.
Step 2
There are a few other possible causes of generalized slow performance that you can rule out easily.
Disconnect all non-essential wired peripherals and remove aftermarket expansion cards, if any.
Reset the System Management Controller.
Run Software Update. If there's a firmware update, install it.
If you're booting from an aftermarket SSD, see whether there's a firmware update for it.
If you have a portable computer, check the cycle count of the battery. It may be due for replacement.
If you have many image or video files on the Desktop with preview icons, move them to another folder.
If applicable, uncheck all boxes in the iCloud preference pane. See whether there's any change.
Check your keychains in Keychain Access for excessively duplicated items.
Boot into Recovery mode, launch Disk Utility, and run Repair Disk.
If you have a MacBook Pro with dual graphics, disable automatic graphics switching in the Energy Saverpreference pane for better performance at the cost of shorter battery life.
Step 3
When you notice the problem, launch the Activity Monitor application in any of the following ways:
☞ Enter the first few letters of its name into a Spotlight search. Select it in the results (it should be at the top.)
☞ In the Finder, select Go ▹ Utilities from the menu bar, or press the key combination shift-command-U. The application is in the folder that opens.
☞ Open LaunchPad. Click Utilities, then Activity Monitor in the icon grid.
Select the CPU tab of the Activity Monitor window.
Select All Processes from the View menu or the menu in the toolbar, if not already selected.
Click the heading of the % CPU column in the process table to sort the entries by CPU usage. You may have to click it twice to get the highest value at the top. What is it, and what is the process? Also post the values for User, System, and Idle at the bottom of the window.
Select the Memory tab. What value is shown in the bottom part of the window for Swap used?
Next, select the Disk tab. Post the approximate values shown for Reads in/sec and Writes out/sec (not Reads in andWrites out.)
Step 4
If you have more than one user account, you must be logged in as an administrator to carry out this step.
Launch the Console application in the same way you launched Activity Monitor. Make sure the title of the Console window is All Messages. If it isn't, select All Messages from the SYSTEM LOG QUERIES menu on the left. If you don't see that menu, select
View ▹ Show Log List
from the menu bar.
Select the 50 or so most recent entries in the log. Copy them to the Clipboard by pressing the key combinationcommand-C. Paste into a reply to this message (command-V). You're looking for entries at the end of the log, not at the beginning.
When posting a log extract, be selective. Don't post more than is requested.
Please do not indiscriminately dump thousands of lines from the log into this discussion.
Important: Some personal information, such as your name, may appear in the log. Anonymize before posting. That should be easy to do if your extract is not too long.

Why are SMB connections so much slower than AFP on my Mac Servers?

I work in a school with a mix of Mac and PC clients and servers. My Mac servers all serve out file sharing to both AFP and SMB. When my Mac clients connect to the Mac servers via SMB, it takes several seconds, sometimes up to a minute before the login screen appears. When I connect via AFP, the login window appears instantaneously. I have also noticed that when the Macs connect to Windows servers, which are obviously SMB, the same long delay occurs. It's manageable, but because it's so quick with AFP, I wonder why the delay?
My biggest concern is that Yosemite connects via SMB by default. Right now everyone is running Mavericks, which will still assume you're asking it to connect via AFP when you don't specify the afp:// in the address. My Yosemite beta machine does the opposite, it assumes SMB when the address doesn't specify. When all my clients make the switch next year, I'm expecting much longer than usual connection times for my mac users who are not technically inclined and who are used to just typing a word or phrase in the "Connect to:" dialog box, rather than an actual address (such as afp://server, they would currently just type "server" and it fills in the rest for them).
Thanks for any help with this. I would love to find out how to speed up the SMB connections.

Performance Tuning the Network Stack
SMB server browsing woefully slow
mac os x slow copy file from Samba Server
Fix slow network file transfers across Mac OSX Lion

Why is my iPhone4 so much slower than my iPad2 on my home wireless network?

I have installed a new Linksys 3200 wireless router. And, I find that my iPhone4 is MUCH slower on the wi-fi network than my iPad2. I expected it to me slower, but not this much! Here are the speedtest results:
iPhone4 - Ping at 399 ms, Download speed at .73 Mbps, Upload speed at 1.00 Mbps
iPad2 - Ping at 84 ms, Download at 5.63 Mbps, Upload at .91 Mbps
My cable modem is supposed to be rated at 5/1 (Download/Upload), so it seems that the iPad is maximizing the use.
I've tried a complete shutdown and restart (modem first, then router, then computer). And, it seems a little faster, but not much.
Is there something wrong with the iPhone? I don't remember it being so slow before...and it seems faster on my office network!
Suggestions, please.
Robert

P.S. It also seems to lose the connection from my iPhone4 pretty easily. I have to go back to settings and reset the wireless network. (Don't have to on the iPad).
Robert

Outlook 2010 performance much slower than 2007 and 2003 when used with POP3 mail provider over slow network connection

When received messages include embedded pictures, Outlook 2010 does not persist those pictures in the .pst file with the message text. Instead, it redownloads the pictures every time the message is rendered for viewing or printing.
Send/Receive to replicate a message with multiple embedded pictures from POP3 mail server (not Exchange server)
Select and view the message - notice all the x placeholders for the embedded pictures
Right-click any x placeholder and select to "download pictures"
After some delay, the pictures are rendered, replacing the placeholders, to form the complete message
Now, select "File" and "Print" -- notice that the preview is not immediately displayed. There is a delay while thos same embedded pictures are downloaded, again. Sometimes there will be a pop-up notification that Outlook is "communicating with
the server"
Eventually the message is fully rendered with all embedded pictures
Now, select a different printer -- notice that the preview disappears and it takes time to .... yes, redownload those same pictures, again.
Finally, click on "Print" -- notice yet another delay for a final download to rerender the message for the printer.
Having done all that, close Outlook, disconnect from the network (turn off wireless or disconnect wire), open Outlook and view that same message. The x placeholders are shown instead of the embedded pictures. Although those embedded pictures
were downloaded multiple times already, they were not persisted locally.
Outlook 2003 and 2007 correct ask for confirmation to save the pictures locally then does so. Printing and viewing is then possible without having to redownload those pictures.
Is there going to be a fix for this Outlook 2010 defect? I've been waiting, applying updates, and waiting.....

Please do not close this thread. The issue remains. I apologize for not checking back sooner. I thought I would get pinged by email when this tread was updated; I did not. I'll monitor more closely in the future.
First, please note that I explicitly set Outlook to NOT download pictures automatically. I want to be prompted to download. However, after confirmed that I want the download, I expect pictures related to the message to be downloaded only once,
immediately after I confirm that I want them downloaded.
I have confirmed many times that the behavior in this area is NOT identical between 2003, 2007 and 2010. In particular, 2007 does download once and store locally (if user confirms to save changes when prompted), as expected, and 2010 downloads each
view/preview/print.
This is quite easy to verify -- simply unplug any network cable, disable wireless, etc. In other words completely detach from the networked world. 2007 will correctly view/preview/etc. from local storage whereas 2010 always reverts to showing
placeholders for any embedded images. This is 100% repeatable.
As an additional verification, simply move the .pst file to another system that is not connected to any network. Open the .pst file with 2007 and any embedded images that were already downloaded (and saved) are there, with 2010 they are not.
With 2010, it is bad enough that embedded images are not saved for viewing when disconnected. Worse than that, the repeated downloads can be a significant disruption to performance. Just get on a really slow wireless connection as is typical
in some hotels. Then try to view and print messages with lots of embedded pictures. Slow takes on a whole new, even slower, meaning.
This 2010 defect has been reproduced. Is there a KB article, Windows Update, hotfix,.... anything available to eliminate this problem of repeated downloads of embedded pictures?

Premiere Pro CS5 never uses more than 15% of CPU, so, performs much slower than premiere 6.5!

Hello.
I'm doing wedding videos for quite a while. My hardware included DV500DVD card and premiere 6.5, CPU is Core 2 Duo E8400, 2GB of RAM, Windows XP SP1 (DV500 can't work with SP2 or SP3).
The above mentioned system is quite old, and absolutely not usable for HD videos. So, I've decided to build another machine. The configuration is as follows:
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit.
M/B: Asus LGA 1155, H67 chipset.
CPU: Intel Core i7-2600K
RAM: 4GB DDR3
HDD: 2x 64GB SSD, 4 x 2TB SATA (RAID) (All HDDs connected to separate PCI-E controller, so intel chipset flaw is not an issue here)
I've recently downloaded and installed the trial version of Premiere Pro CS5, to see, how it suits to my needs. And I'm very dissapointed. I've started premiere, selected DV-widescreen preset, inserted two static pictures on timeline, and did an alpha blend between them. Then put movie to export. Not only it took way too long time to render, but it only used single core, and cpu usage is only 15% ! Just for curiosity, I've installed premiere 6.5 on same system, and it did that task about 10 times faster!
What is this, limitation of trial version, or just Premiere Pro CS5 can't be used with this modern CPU ?
Thanks in advance,
Alex

First off 4GB of ram is really to low for CS5. CS5 is 64 bit for a reason and requires far more ram. 2nd, what video card are you using?
As for the opteron system the other poster listed, you could get the lower end Intel platform and easily out perform that opteron system. A Geforce 450GTS video card would out perform that Quadro by 2 or 3 times and that card is barely over $100.
No offence but you can't run CS5 on minimal or very old specifications and expect the same results as everyone else or older software. If you can't upgrade the hardware then I suggest staying with the previous version until you can. The MPE engine requires allot of resources to function especially ram and your lower spec or older system will just bottleneck the pipeline rather than speed things up.
Eric
ADK

Why does exporting take so much longer than in FCP7?

With the same computer configuration I am getting three times the rendering time with I go to either the projectings settings defualt or h.264. Nothing had been background rendered but it was never in FCP7 either. It seems like any text or other overlayed graphics are really slowing this process down. Thoughts?

That is not normal, but what is going on is hard to say without some testing. It could be cache-related, if you've gotten some corruption in some important caches. Try getting a copy of OnyX and clearing caches. (Note that cache clearing should be considered a troubleshooting step only... don't use such utilities for routine maintenance.)
You could also have a dying hard drive. That would not necessarily show up on hardware tests. Sometimes drive failures show up in advance in hardware tests or SMART status checks, and sometimes they don't. That could explain the excessive hard drive thrashing. If this is the problem, there may not be any reasonable solution until the drive finally goes kaput, or decides to change to a detectable imminent failure.
There could also be any number of other problems, such as low RAM, hard drive directory corruption, incompatible third-party software, etc. Try some of the techniques in the Mac OS X Speed FAQ.

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

Why is Mac OS X 10.7 so much slower than Snow Leopard? It isnt smooth, applications are slow and most dont respond, and dowloads take hours, minutes.

Why is Mac OS X 10.7 so much slower than Snow Leopard? It isnt smooth, applications are slow and most dont respond, and dowloads take hours, not minutes.

Something is seriously wrong with your installation or you are critically low on RAM, like below 2 GB.
How much RAM is in your machine?
Have you tried a Recovery?

Why does Acrobat Pdf converter file slow down my 2003, Windows Word Program. I only experience this problem when i convert a pdf file to a doc file.

Why does Acrobat Pdf converter file slow down my 2003, Windows Word Program. I only experience this problem when i convert a pdf file to a doc file.

Hi Bill -- thanks for your reply!
When I check the Document Properties on Acrobat I can see that the fonts used in the document (Cambria, Times and Windings) are listed as "Embedded Subset" in the Fonts panel. The machine it was created on did use an earlier version of OS X and an old version of Word, but it seems to have the proper fonts...
-nick

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Parameterized queries running much slower than ones with hardcoded values

Very often there is a huge performance difference when using parameters in a query, compared to running the same code after replacing the parameters with hardcoded values: the parameterized version of the code runs much slower!
The case is not parameter sniffing as it is not a (compiled) stored proc, but code executed directly from the editor and the performance issue has been observed in different versions of SQL Server (2000 and 2005).
How is this explained and how can the parameterized queries have similar performance with the hardcoded ones?
Also, why does this happen in some cases and not always?
Finally, the same is sometimes the case with stored procs: a very slow running proc speeds up tremendously when running its code directly, instead of calling the procedure --and even faster, according to the previous, when its parameters are replaced with
hardcoded values

>>The case is not parameter sniffing as it is not a (compiled) stored proc, but code executed >>>directly
from the editor ?>>>and the performance issue has been observed in different >>>versions of SQL Server (2000 and 2005).
Something like below?
--SQL Server creates 3 execution plan rather only one
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE
GO
SELECT *
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader
WHERE SalesOrderID = 56000
GO
SELECT * FROM
AdventureWorks.Sales.SalesOrderHeader WHERE
SalesOrderID = 56001
GO
declare @i int
set @i = 56004
SELECT *
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader
WHERE SalesOrderID = @i
GO
select stats.execution_count AS exec_count,
p.size_in_bytes as [size],
[sql].[text] as [plan_text]
from sys.dm_exec_cached_plans p
outer apply sys.dm_exec_sql_text (p.plan_handle) sql
join sys.dm_exec_query_stats stats ON stats.plan_handle = p.plan_handle
GO
----This time only (we get parameterization)
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE
GO
EXEC sp_executesql N'SELECT SUM(LineTotal) AS LineTotal
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader H
JOIN Sales.SalesOrderDetail D ON D.SalesOrderID = H.SalesOrderID
WHERE H.SalesOrderID = @SalesOrderID', N'@SalesOrderID INT', 56000
GO
EXEC sp_executesql N'SELECT SUM(LineTotal) AS LineTotal
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader H
JOIN Sales.SalesOrderDetail D ON D.SalesOrderID = H.SalesOrderID
WHERE H.SalesOrderID = @SalesOrderID', N'@SalesOrderID INT', 56005
GO
select stats.execution_count AS exec_count,
LEFT([sql].[text], 80) as [plan_text]
from sys.dm_exec_cached_plans p
outer apply sys.dm_exec_sql_text (p.plan_handle) sql
join sys.dm_exec_query_stats stats ON stats.plan_handle = p.plan_handle
GO
Best Regards,Uri Dimant SQL Server MVP,
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/uri_dimant/
MS SQL optimization: MS SQL Development and Optimization
MS SQL Consulting:
Large scale of database and data cleansing
Remote DBA Services:
Improves MS SQL Database Performance
SQL Server Integration Services:
Business Intelligence

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

My iphone is suddenly populated by random songs I've downloaded in the past. Why does this happen, and what are apple doing about fixing this?

Why does this happen?
What do other people do? (I can't go to sleep knowing there's a rogue album or song in my music. It's 2am now)
What do we tell apple so that they actually fix it. None of us want to pay £25 to have our own music.

I am on the monthly payment plan because nobody at BT has told me there is any alternative!
Each year there I have a long, in-depth conversation with the person who sets up the contract for the next year but the gist of the thing is 'I'm not going to be paying more than [x amount] per month, am I? Because I can't afford any more'' and each year the person says that no, in fact I should be paying less... and then without notice and even with the bill saying 'We will continue to take....' a totally different - and higher - sum disappears from my bank account.
Then I go through the painful process of writing to complain about this, get some sort of sum refunded and then the payments go through at the level they should, with me paying any additional (usually small) amounts for usage over the allowance. Until contract end when we start all over again...
Even if the amount they seem to randomly decide on is based on some sort of forecast, this should not be happening as I am doing what they instruct me to do on the bill to keep my payments the same.
So something is going wrong, on many levels.
At no point have I been offered the sort of 'monthly billing' described here; maybe there is some reason I am not allowed it. Unfortunately 'whole bill' direct debit payment is beyond me. I really need to know what I will be paying each month and I need BT to correctly take that amount, as agreed, each month, from the get-go.
It shouldn't be that hard really! Does anyone from BT read these forums? Can somebody take this on and finally get this straight, please?

In CS6, JavaScript Running MUCH Slower than ActionScript

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for