Why query is running slow....?morning evrything is fine...

in the morning all queries r running well..?
but now what happened...
evry query is taking half an hour to run?
what might be the possible reasons?
problem is not in my system...some server issue...what might be that?
Message was edited by:
neeraja devi

Hi neeraja,
As said above ,you Can check in RSRTand OLAPCACHE.In RSRt,You can also check whether the query is hitting the right aggregates or not to pull the data.
Apart from this, you can also Check with BW statistics and check where the problem lies
<b>And another important T-code is St03n.</b> .here you can analyse why the query is taking more time than required to execute.
As far as problem is concerned,if it is a server issue,please contact your Basis Consultant and also verify the Rfc connection.
Regards,
amar

Similar Messages

Parallel hint causes a query to run slower?

I have an insert...select query where the select is a join between a table with one billion rows (although there is a where clause on an indexed column that restricts it to "only" 300 million), a table with 30 million rows, and a table with about 100,000 rows, where the result is about 20 rows. When I first ran it, it took about 2 hours. I added a Parallel hint, and explain plan showed that it was being used (and v$session showed that I had about 30 additional connections while it ran). but not it takes four hours.
Is there a reason parallel processing would cause a query to run slower?
insert /*+ append */ into employees_by_age_group
pay_plan
, age_range
, pay_level
, fy
, employee_count
select /*+ parallel */
       emp.pay_plan
     , to_char(d.min_age) || '-' || to_char(d.max_age) as age_range
     , emp.pay_level
     , pay.fy
     , count(pay.employee_id) as employee_count
from
select /*+ index(pay_info pay_info_index_on_site) */
         employee_id
       , extract(year from (dte_ppe_end + 92)) as fy
       , count(employee_id) as num_recs
from pay_info
where extract(month from dte_ppe_end) = 10
and   extract(day from dte_ppe_end) between 14 and 27
and   substr(pay_type, 1, 1) IN ('A', 'B', 'C')
and   site like 'Z%'
group by employee_id, extract(year from (dte_ppe_end + 92))
) pay
join
select employee_id
       , pay_plan
       , pay_grade
       , pay_step
       , file_date
from
    select /*+ index(employee_info employee_info_index_on_site) */
           employee_id
         , pay_level
         , file_date
         , max(file_date)
           over (partition by extract(year from (file_date + 61)))
           as last_file_date
    from employee_info
    where site like 'Z%'
where file_date = last_file_date
) emp
on (
     emp.employee_id = pay.employee_id
     and extract(year from emp.file_date) = pay.fy - 1
join (
       select employee_id
            , dob
       from (
              select employee_id
                   , date_birth
                   , row_number() over (partition by employee_id order by date_file desc) as r
              from employee_birthdates
              where site like 'Z%'
       where r = 1
     ) dob
on dob.employee_id = pay.employee_id
join
            select 20 as min_age, 24 as max_age from dual
union all select 25 as min_age, 29 as max_age from dual
union all select 30 as min_age, 34 as max_age from dual
union all select 35 as min_age, 39 as max_age from dual
union all select 40 as min_age, 44 as max_age from dual
union all select 45 as min_age, 49 as max_age from dual
union all select 50 as min_age, 54 as max_age from dual
union all select 55 as min_age, 59 as max_age from dual
union all select 60 as min_age, 64 as max_age from dual
union all select 65 as min_age, 69 as max_age from dual
union all select 70 as min_age, 74 as max_age from dual
union all select 75 as min_age, 79 as max_age from dual
union all select 80 as min_age, 84 as max_age from dual
union all select 85 as min_age, 89 as max_age from dual
union all select 90 as min_age, 94 as max_age from dual
union all select 95 as min_age, 99 as max_age from dual
) d
group by emp.pay_plan, d.min_age, d.max_age, emp.pay_level, pay.fy;

Paul - here are three different explain plans
First, the original one (without the parallel hint):
INSERT STATEMENT ALL_ROWS                                              Cost: 26,684,255 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
35 LOAD AS SELECT EMPLOYEES_BY_AGE_GROUP
    34 HASH GROUP BY                                                    Cost: 26,684,255 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
      33 NESTED LOOPS                                                   Cost: 26,684,254 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
        14 HASH JOIN                                                    Cost: 26,684,222 Bytes: 108 Cardinality: 1
          9 MERGE JOIN                                                  Cost: 4,408,803 Bytes: 8,322 Cardinality: 146
            3 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                          Cost: 114,863 Bytes: 29,625,180 Cardinality: 987,506
              2 WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK                                 Cost: 114,863 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                1 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE EMPLOYEE_BIRTHDATES           Cost: 108,983 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
            8 SORT JOIN                                                 Cost: 4,293,940 Bytes: 3,645 Cardinality: 135
              7 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                        Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 3,645 Cardinality: 135
                6 SORT GROUP BY                                         Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 4,185 Cardinality: 135
                  5 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE PAY_INFO          Cost: 4,293,938 Bytes: 4,185 Cardinality: 135
                    4 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX PAY_INFO_INDEX_ON_SITE     Cost: 487,124 Cardinality: 402,683,034
          13 VIEW DONBOT_DBA                                            Cost: 22,275,300 Bytes: 1,160,143,257 Cardinality: 22,747,907
            12 WINDOW SORT                                              Cost: 22,275,300 Bytes: 841,672,559 Cardinality: 22,747,907
              11 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE EMPLOYEE_INFO        Cost: 22,137,046 Bytes: 841,672,559 Cardinality: 22,747,907
                10 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX EMPLOYEE_INFO_INDEX_ON_SITE   Cost: 50,419 Cardinality: 38,019,281
        32 VIEW DONBOT_DBA
          31 UNION-ALL
            15 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            16 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            17 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            18 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            19 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            20 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            21 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            22 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            23 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            24 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            25 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            26 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            27 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            28 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            29 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            30 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1          Next, one with the parallel hint:
INSERT STATEMENT ALL_ROWS                                                                              Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
51 LOAD AS SELECT EMPLOYEES_BY_AGE_GROUP
    50 PX COORDINATOR
      49 PX SEND QC (RANDOM) PARALLEL_TO_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10005 :Q1005                                     Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
        48 HASH GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1005                                           Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
          47 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1005                                            Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
            46 PX SEND HASH PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10004 :Q1004                                    Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
              45 HASH GROUP BY PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004                                     Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
                44 NESTED LOOPS PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004                                    Cost: 26,507,111 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
                  25 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004                                     Cost: 26,507,109 Bytes: 108 Cardinality: 1
                    17 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004                                  Cost: 4,301,500 Bytes: 4,104 Cardinality: 72
                      16 PX SEND HASH PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10003 :Q1003                          Cost: 4,301,500 Bytes: 4,104 Cardinality: 72
                        15 HASH JOIN PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003                               Cost: 4,301,500 Bytes: 4,104 Cardinality: 72
                          7 BUFFER SORT PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1003
                            6 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003                           Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 1,809 Cardinality: 67
                              5 PX SEND BROADCAST PARALLEL_FROM_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10000                     Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 1,809 Cardinality: 67
                                4 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                                      Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 1,809 Cardinality: 67
                                  3 SORT GROUP BY                                                       Cost: 4,293,939 Bytes: 2,077 Cardinality: 67
                                    2 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE PAY_INFO                        Cost: 4,293,938 Bytes: 2,077 Cardinality: 67
                                      1 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX PAY_INFO_INDEX_ON_SITE                   Cost: 487,124 Cardinality: 199,756,151
                          14 VIEW PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DONBOT_DBA. :Q1003                      Cost: 7,561 Bytes: 29,625,180 Cardinality: 987,506
                            13 WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003             Cost: 7,561 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                              12 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1003                        Cost: 7,561 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                                11 PX SEND HASH PARALLEL_TO_PARALLEL SYS.:TQ10002 :Q1002                Cost: 7,561 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                                  10 WINDOW CHILD PUSHED RANK PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1002      Cost: 7,561 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                                    9 PX BLOCK ITERATOR PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1002             Cost: 7,557 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                                      8 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT EMPLOYEE_BIRTHDATES :Q1002     Cost: 7,557 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                    24 BUFFER SORT PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_CHILD :Q1004
                      23 PX RECEIVE PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004                                Cost: 22,205,605 Bytes: 575,504,145 Cardinality: 11,284,395
                        22 PX SEND HASH PARALLEL_FROM_SERIAL SYS.:TQ10001                               Cost: 22,205,605 Bytes: 575,504,145 Cardinality: 11,284,395
                          21 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                                           Cost: 22,205,605 Bytes: 575,504,145 Cardinality: 11,284,395
                            20 WINDOW SORT                                                              Cost: 22,205,605 Bytes: 417,522,615 Cardinality: 11,284,395
                              19 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE EMPLOYEE_INFO                        Cost: 22,137,046 Bytes: 417,522,615 Cardinality: 11,284,395
                                18 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX EMPLOYEE_INFO_INDEX_ON_SITE                   Cost: 50,419 Cardinality: 18,859,958
                  43 VIEW PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT DONBOT_DBA. :Q1004                              Cost: 32 Bytes: 6 Cardinality: 1
                    42 UNION-ALL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004
                      26 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      27 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      28 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      29 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      30 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      31 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      32 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      33 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      34 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      35 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      36 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      37 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      38 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      39 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      40 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                      41 FAST DUAL PARALLEL_COMBINED_WITH_PARENT :Q1004         Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1                  Finally, one without the parallel hint, and without the index hint on PAY_TABLE:
INSERT STATEMENT ALL_ROWS                                              Cost: 23,348,654 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
34 LOAD AS SELECT ARMYMP.EMPLOYEES_BY_AGE
    33 HASH GROUP BY                                                    Cost: 23,348,654 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
      32 NESTED LOOPS                                                   Cost: 23,348,653 Bytes: 114 Cardinality: 1
        13 HASH JOIN                                                    Cost: 23,348,621 Bytes: 108 Cardinality: 1
          8 MERGE JOIN                                                  Cost: 1,073,202 Bytes: 8,322 Cardinality: 146
            3 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                          Cost: 114,863 Bytes: 29,625,180 Cardinality: 987,506
              2 WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK                                 Cost: 114,863 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
                1 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE EMPLOYEE_BIRTHDATES           Cost: 108,983 Bytes: 35,550,216 Cardinality: 987,506
            7 SORT JOIN                                                 Cost: 958,339 Bytes: 3,645 Cardinality: 135
              6 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                        Cost: 958,338 Bytes: 3,645 Cardinality: 135
                5 SORT GROUP BY                                         Cost: 958,338 Bytes: 4,185 Cardinality: 135
                  4 TABLE ACCESS FULL TABLE PAY_INFO                    Cost: 958,337 Bytes: 4,185 Cardinality: 135
          12 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                           Cost: 22,275,300 Bytes: 1,160,143,257 Cardinality: 22,747,907
            11 WINDOW SORT                                              Cost: 22,275,300 Bytes: 841,672,559 Cardinality: 22,747,907
              10 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TABLE EMPLOYEE_INFO        Cost: 22,137,046 Bytes: 841,672,559 Cardinality: 22,747,907
                9 INDEX RANGE SCAN INDEX EMPLOYEE_INFO_UIC              Cost: 50,419 Cardinality: 38,019,281
        31 VIEW DONBOT_DBA.                                             Cost: 32 Bytes: 6 Cardinality: 1
          30 UNION-ALL
            14 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            15 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            16 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            17 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            18 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            19 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            20 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            21 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            22 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            23 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            24 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            25 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            26 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            27 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            28 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
            29 FAST DUAL Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1        I am surprised the cost without the index is less than the cost with it, considering that it is replacing a Table Access By Index Rowid with a Table Access Full on a table with 1 billion (1000 million) records.
Igor - two questions:
One - I cannot find "Materialize" in the hints in the SQL Reference anywhere. What does it do?
Two - does replacing subqueries with With clauses make that much of a difference?

Why does Lion run slower than Snow Leopard?

I recently loaded Lion on my older MacBook Pro 2.2 GHz Intel Core Duo, with 4 GB 677 MHz DDR2 SDRAM. and it runs slower and the it seems to be hotter and consume more battery power. Are the configuration option that can reduce the power drain?

You may have some mildly-incompatible third-party software, or you may be doing tasks that demand a lot of RAM and 4 GB is no longer enough on a system that has double the memory requirements of SL. Or could be something else entirely. Take a look at Understanding upgrade nightmares* for more information and some potential solutions.
* Disclaimer: links to my pages may give me compensation, and should not be taken as endorsement of my services by Apple.

Why PB application run slower in Windows 7 than XP?

Hi there,
Why PB application in windows 7 64-bit slower than in XP? Is something that I need to change in OS level or PB?
The PB version 12.x
Any suggestion will be appreciated.
thx!

Hi Patrick;
I would have to say in general that in all my W7 versus XP testing that PB runs about 15-20% slower on W7 than XP.
Now, this can be counteracted by stepping up the memory and CPU power on your W7 machine.
However, newer W7 machines speeds can be severely degraded by low RAM configuration and in particular poor printer drivers. The latter is what determines the DataWindow speed as the DWO utilizes the current printer driver to visualize the DW primary buffer. So a poor performing print driver can not only slow your application down but make the DW Painter in the IDE very slow to open
Regards ... Chris

Why is iTunes running slow

I'm using iTunes 10.7 (avoiding iTunes 11 because you can't have multiple playlists open at the same time with it) on my MacBook Pro. I have a large library on an external Thunderbolt drive. I'm finding iTunes running annoyingly slow quite. I've eliminated all but one or two smart playlists, but have more a couple of hundred regular playlists. Looking for suggestions on how to speed up iTunes.

No it's not your computer. The newest version of itunes is basically unusable. It will freeze, not only the program itself, but it will slow your whole computer to a crawl, or more usually, to a completely frozen state. I've done some time checks:
After clicking on a song, it took over 40 seconds before the song actually played.
After sliding the volume slider to the left to descrease volume, it took over 90 seconds for the change to actually be implemented.
I haven't listend to music for months on my computer because of this stupid memory hog of a program. Never had a problem until some of the more recent updates.
Apparently itunes philosophy is "If it ain't broke, break it."

Query Is Running Slow

Hi all,
I am runnig the query first time but it is taking very much time to run query . are there any parameter which we need to set from BIW when we run the query first time ?
when i try to dril down any char. or when i try to move any free characteristic to rows it is taking very much time.
please tell me the steps to improve the performance.
Regards,
Komik Shah

Hi,
This info may be helpful.
General tips
Using aggregates and compression.
Using less and complex cell definitions if possible.
1. Avoid using too many nav. attr
2. Avoid RKF and CKF
3. Many chars in row.
By using T-codes ST03 or ST03N
Go to transaction ST03 > switch to expert mode > from left side menu > and there in system load history and distribution for a particual day > check query execution time.
/people/andreas.vogel/blog/2007/04/08/statistical-records-part-4-how-to-read-st03n-datasets-from-db-in-nw2004
/people/andreas.vogel/blog/2007/03/16/how-to-read-st03n-datasets-from-db
Try table rsddstats to get the statistics
Using cache memoery will decrease the loading time of the report.
Run reporting agent at night and sending results to email.This will ensure use of OLAP cache. So later report execution will retrieve the result faster from the OLAP cache.
4. Go to SE38 > Run the program SAP_INFOCUBE_DESIGNS
It will shown dimension Vs Fact tables Size in percent.If you mean speed of queries on a cube as performance metric of cube,measure query runtime.
3. To check the performance of the aggregates,see the columns valuation and usage in aggregates.
Open the Aggregates...and observe VALUATION and USAGE columns.
"---" sign is the valuation of the aggregate. You can say -3 is the valuation of the aggregate design and usage. ++ means that its compression is good and access is also more (in effect, performance is good). If you check its compression ratio, it must be good. -- means the compression ratio is not so good and access is also not so good (performance is not so good).The more is the positives...more is useful the aggregate and more it satisfies the number of queries. The greater the number of minus signs, the worse the evaluation of the aggregate. The larger the number of plus signs, the better the evaluation of the aggregate.
if "-----" then it means it just an overhead. Aggregate can potentially be deleted and "+++++" means Aggregate is potentially very useful.
Refer.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/b8/23813b310c4a0ee10000000a114084/content.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/60/f0fb411e255f24e10000000a1550b0/frameset.htm
Note 356732 - Performance Tuning for Queries with Aggregates
5. Run your query in RSRT and run the query in the debug mode. Select "Display Aggregates Found" and "Do not use cache" in the debug mode. This will tell you if it hit any aggregates while running. If it does not show any aggregates, you might want to redesign your aggregates for the query.
Also your query performance can depend upon criteria and since you have given selection only on one infoprovider...just check if you are selecting huge amount of data in the report
Check for the query read mode in RSRT.(whether its A,X or H)..advisable read mode is X.
Generate Report in RSRT
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/cccad390-0201-0010-5093-fd9ec8157802
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/4c0ab590-0201-0010-bd9a-8332d8b4f09c
Achieving BI Query Performance Building Business Intelligence
http://www.dmreview.com/issues/20051001/1038109-1.html
Performance Tuning with the OLAP Cache
http://www.sapadvisors.com/resources/Howto...PerformanceTuningwiththeOLAPCache$28pdf$29.pdf
Business Intelligence Journal Improving Query Performance in Data Warehouses
http://www.tdwi.org/Publications/BIJournal/display.aspx?ID=7891
Achieving BI Query Performance Building Business Intelligence
http://www.dmreview.com/issues/20051001/1038109-1.html
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
JituK

Why is Firefox running slow with version 17?

Hello there I was wondering whether you could please assist me with an issue with version 17.
I have recently updated to firefox 17 and i regret to advise that its running really really slow. I notice several other users have had similar issues as I noticed in the support forums.
I am running Trend Micro Virus software if that means anything to the performance of firefox.
I love using firefox and really would like to get this issue fixed if you can point me in the right direction.

I have the same experience when I updated Firefox to a new version but kept an very old version Adblock Plus, which still appeared to work properly. After update ABP to the new version, my Firefox doesn't stuck any more.
Try to run Firefox without any addon loaded. If FF runs smoothly alone, then there must be some problem with your addons.

Why is Safari running slow on my MBP?

It just recently started to slow down. A few hours ago, I experienced it so I just turned off my MBP to, hopefully fix it, but Safari is still going slow. Yesterday, it was running fine and I was loading up pages fast. Now, when I ever I go to a new page or click a link, it pauses and the address bar above loads to about 3cm and the spinning color wheel spins for about 5 seconds until the new page loads. It does it for every thing I go to. Trying to ask this question probably took a minute to get to when it should only be a few seconds. I've tried Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox and it is fine. When I enter a web address or click a link, in a few seconds, the new page shows. I really don't want to move to a new internet source because all my bookmarks and saves is on Safari. Is there a way to fix this?

Since Safari freezes before you can troubleshoot, boot in Safe Mode then try troubleshooting Safari extensions and third party plug-ins.
Startup your Mac in Safe Mode
A Safe Mode boot takes much longer than a normal boot so be patient.
From the Safari menu bar click Safari > Preferences then select the Extensions tab. Turn that OFF, quit and relaunch Safari to test. If that helped, turn one extension on then quit and relaunch Safari to test until you find the incompatible extension then click uninstall.
If it's not an extensions issue, try troubleshooting third party plug-ins.
Back to Safari > Preferences. This time select the Security tab. Deselect: Allow all other plug-ins. Quit and relaunch Safari to test.
If that made a difference, instructions for troubleshooting plugins here.
Once you are in Safe Mode, click Restart from the Apple () menu.

Why OSX is running slow

I have a problem with my macbook pro. Im running the latest version of OS X but the problem existed even before the upgrade.
My OS X is loading all of the software really slow. And im not using a lot of programs. I have installed only transmission, vlc, skype, spotify, adobe reader and flash.
I have Windows installed on my mac just to see if the situation will be the same but its not. First i thought that i have a problem with the hard disk but this is not the case.
When im using windows everything is loading how is should be... fast and without any delays or problems. But when i switch to OS X everything gets slower. If i want to load IPhoto the first time is loading for 30-40 sec. Olso system preferences is loading for 4-5 sec witch to me is extremly slow!
Another issue is that when i turn on my mac and the OS loads all the RAM is ussed! I HAve 4 GB of ram and with just the OS running and 3 apps all the ram is gone. I dont see how this is possible. Running only safari and vlc and i dont have any free ram.
Any ideas how i can try to fix the issue?
MacBook Pro
15-inch, Early 2011
Processor 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Graphics Intel HD Graphics 3000 384 MB
Software OS X 10.9 (13A603)
Hard disk 750GB

I have a problem with my macbook pro. Im running the latest version of OS X but the problem existed even before the upgrade.
My OS X is loading all of the software really slow. And im not using a lot of programs. I have installed only transmission, vlc, skype, spotify, adobe reader and flash.
I have Windows installed on my mac just to see if the situation will be the same but its not. First i thought that i have a problem with the hard disk but this is not the case.
When im using windows everything is loading how is should be... fast and without any delays or problems. But when i switch to OS X everything gets slower. If i want to load IPhoto the first time is loading for 30-40 sec. Olso system preferences is loading for 4-5 sec witch to me is extremly slow!
Another issue is that when i turn on my mac and the OS loads all the RAM is ussed! I HAve 4 GB of ram and with just the OS running and 3 apps all the ram is gone. I dont see how this is possible. Running only safari and vlc and i dont have any free ram.
Any ideas how i can try to fix the issue?
MacBook Pro
15-inch, Early 2011
Processor 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 4 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Graphics Intel HD Graphics 3000 384 MB
Software OS X 10.9 (13A603)
Hard disk 750GB

SQl query are running slow in comparison to oracle 8i

Hi everybody,
I have two systems one is Oracle 9i on Windows 2000 and
one is Oracle 8i running on Windows 2000. The database structure is the same. When I run the following qry in
Oracle 9i
SELECT COUNT (a.aint_ac_no) AS total_ac_no, adet_int_rate,
SUM (fun_max_cbal_bal (a.aint_ac_no,
a.aint_subsys_cd,
TO_DATE ('30/01/2009', 'DD/MM/YYYY')
) AS balance
FROM domst120 a, domst730 b
WHERE a.aint_interest_slab_cd = b.adet_srno
AND a.aint_subsys_cd = '137'
AND fun_max_cbal_bal (a.aint_ac_no,
a.aint_subsys_cd,
TO_DATE ('30/01/2009', 'DD/MM/YYYY')
) <> 0
AND a.aint_eff_date =
(SELECT MAX (c.aint_eff_date)
FROM domst120 c
WHERE a.aint_bank_cd = c.aint_bank_cd
AND a.aint_branch_cd = c.aint_branch_cd
AND a.aint_bank_cd = '857'
AND a.aint_branch_cd = '6'
AND a.aint_subsys_cd = c.aint_subsys_cd
AND a.aint_ac_no = c.aint_ac_no)
GROUP BY b.adet_int_rate
ORDER BY b.adet_int_rate
it takes 6 min to complete.
the same qry running in Oracle 8i takes 2 seconds
to complete.
The index structure is same in both systems also the tables
were analyzed with compute statistics.

What do you expect?! Oracle 9i and Oracle 8i are different particularly by optimizer cost-based(9i) and rule-based(8i) :)
what about both execution plans?

Why is clock running slow?

Why is clock on phone losing about 3-4 minutes a day?

Sounds like it isn't syncing correctly with either your network time or network time zone settings.

Why does Firefox run slower on Wondows 7 64bit?

Ok so I just totally rebuilt my system but instead of reinstalling Windows 7 32bit I decided I wanted to run a 64bit version instead. But when I ran 32bit Firefox was my fastest browser and now that I have a 64bit its in 2nd place to IE9 beta. So was just wondering really if there was a 64bit edition of Firefox that I'm not able to find.

Have you tuned your windows system and gotten rid of indexing and excess processes. See this tuning guide

Why is my computer running slow since upgrading to os x yosemite?

I upgraded my MacBook 13" Aluminum (2008) to OS X Yosemite earlier this year, and ever since, my computer has not been as fast as it was on OS X Mountain Lion or before. It ran fine then, but my speed has fallen harshly. Is there a way to make my computer operate faster?

Activity Monitor - Mavericks also Yosemite
Activity Monitor in Mavericks has significant changes
Performance Guide
Why is my computer slow
Why your Mac runs slower than it should
Slow Mac After Mavericks
Things you can do to resolve slowdowns see post by Kappy
Try running this program and then copy and paste the output in a reply. The program was created by Etresoft, a frequent contributor. Please use copy and paste as screen shots can be hard to read.
Etrecheck – System Information
Unless you've added RAM since you bought the computer, you could probably increase the performance by adding RAM. The 2 places I’ve seen recommended most to buy reliable RAM are below. I have purchased RAM several times from Other World Computing and have always been very satisfied with the product and service. They have on-line instructions on how to replace the RAM. OWC has also tested RAM above what Apple states is the maximum. I now have 6GB installed on a machine supposedly limited to 4 GB.
Crucial
Other World Computing

Why is my computer running slower after upgrading to Maverick?

So my computer seems to be running slower, doing anything at all after I installed the newest OS, Maverick. Anyone have an idea as to why that might be? What can I do to make it better?
Thanks,
Snoopynorthw
Nevermind, I found this other discussion below. Thanks.

Activity Monitor - Mavericks also Yosemite
Activity Monitor in Mavericks has significant changes
Performance Guide
Why is my computer slow
Why your Mac runs slower than it should
Slow Mac After Mavericks
Things you can do to resolve slowdowns see post by Kappy
Try running this program and then copy and paste the output in a reply. The program was created by Etresoft, a frequent contributor. Please use copy and paste as screen shots can be hard to read.
Etrecheck – System Information
Unless you've added RAM since you bought the computer, you could probably increase the performance by adding RAM. The 2 places I’ve seen recommended most to buy reliable RAM are below. I have purchased RAM several times from Other World Computing and have always been very satisfied with the product and service. They have on-line instructions on how to replace the RAM. OWC has also tested RAM above what Apple states is the maximum. I now have 6GB installed on a machine supposedly limited to 4 GB.
Crucial
Other World Computing

Query running slow

Below query is running slow is there any other way to write the query which will enhance the performance.
select ld.cst_fle_seq,
     tf.date_pro,
     lj.case_num ,
     ca.reference,
     rr.rej_txt
from
     load_judg lj,
     rej_rea rr ,
     pl_case ca,
     tp_files tf ,
     tp tp
where rr.rej_code(+) = ld.rej_code
and ca.case_num (+)=lj.case_num
and tp.seq =tf.seq
and lj.cred_code(+) =tp.cst_code
and tp.format =9
and valid=''Y''
and tf.fle_name like ''%F%''
and lj.rej_code is not null
and trunc(date_pro)=trunc(sysdate)
Thanks in advance
Jha

Here is the explan plan of the query
- SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=16 Card=1 Bytes=225)
-NESTED LOOPS (Cost=16 Card=1 Bytes=225)
-NESTED LOOPS (OUTER) (Cost=15 Card=1 Bytes=192)
- HASH JOIN (Cost=14 Card=1 Bytes=147)
- MERGE JOIN (CARTESIAN) (Cost=9 Card=4 Bytes=432)
-TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF LOAD_JUDGMENTS (Cost=1 Card=1 Bytes=69)
- SORT (JOIN)
-TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF TAPE_FILES
-TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF TAPES (Cost=4 Card=418 Bytes=16302)
-TABLE ACCESS (BY ROWID) OF REJECT_REASONS
-INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF REJ_PK (UNIQUE)
-TABLE ACCESS (BY ROWID) OF CASES
-INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF CASE_PK (UNIQUE)
sorry, as I have checked the tables and its not a cartesian.
Thanks
Jha

Why query is running slow....?morning evrything is fine...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for