PartTran Data Directive Consequences

Yahoo Archive
1
DaveO,



If you've got 5 data directives, I'd recommend disabling 4 of them at a
time, and see if you can narrow down the culprit as to which one is causing
the slow performance. You may find it's just one, then again, you may find
all five are equally contributing to the performance issue.



Going from 15 seconds to 6 minutes doesn't seem like it's a result of simply
putting a directive on that file - regardless of how big or how much the
file is used. In my opinion, there's likely something else going on with
it. Perhaps you've not written some of the code correctly. If you narrow
it down to one specific directive, you could post what you've done on here,
and maybe we could see where the issue is.



Kevin



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
DaveO
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 2:42 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: PartTran Data Directive Consequences





Mr. Ned: We have two In-Transaction DD's and 3 Standard DD's

DaveO

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ned C."
<TechnoBabbly@...> wrote:
>
> What type of DD did you put on the table?
>
> Personally, I think PartTran is not a good table to be doing any kind of
DD
> on them because of the sheer size, and the volume of transactions that
take
> place with it. I would recommend removing the DD on the PartTran table and
> look for a different way of doing the same thing on a different table that
> is linked to it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
> DaveO
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] PartTran Data Directive Consequences
>
> We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data
Directive
> BPM that uses PartTran.
>
> We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in
the
> past it only took 15seconds.
>
> I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are
> experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.
>
> I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even
> using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using
> PartTran without slowing down the whole works?
>
> Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get
those
> to work for us.
>
> Thanks in advance for any input,
>
> Dave Olender (DaveO)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
> already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
> (1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
> Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
> (2) To search through old msg's goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
> (3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data Directive BPM that uses PartTran.

We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in the past it only took 15seconds.

I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.

I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using PartTran without slowing down the whole works?

Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get those to work for us.

Thanks in advance for any input,

Dave Olender (DaveO)
3
IMO, PartTran is a bad, bad table to hang anything on. If you were SQL, I’d suggest a [safely tested] db trigger as an alternative. I’ve put triggers on PartTran before with no noticeable performance degradation. Makes sense... Triggers are bottom-layer raw-database tools whereas data-directive BPMs can have too much overhead being middle-layer; especially on the table with the most transactions.

From: DaveO
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:43 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] PartTran Data Directive Consequences


We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data Directive BPM that uses PartTran.

We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in the past it only took 15seconds.

I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.

I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using PartTran without slowing down the whole works?

Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get those to work for us.

Thanks in advance for any input,

Dave Olender (DaveO)




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4924 - Release Date: 04/09/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
What type of DD did you put on the table?

Personally, I think PartTran is not a good table to be doing any kind of DD
on them because of the sheer size, and the volume of transactions that take
place with it. I would recommend removing the DD on the PartTran table and
look for a different way of doing the same thing on a different table that
is linked to it.

-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
DaveO
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:43 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] PartTran Data Directive Consequences

We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data Directive
BPM that uses PartTran.

We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in the
past it only took 15seconds.

I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are
experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.

I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even
using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using
PartTran without slowing down the whole works?

Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get those
to work for us.

Thanks in advance for any input,

Dave Olender (DaveO)




------------------------------------

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links
5
Mr. Ned: We have two In-Transaction DD's and 3 Standard DD's

DaveO

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Ned C." <TechnoBabbly@...> wrote:
>
> What type of DD did you put on the table?
>
> Personally, I think PartTran is not a good table to be doing any kind of DD
> on them because of the sheer size, and the volume of transactions that take
> place with it. I would recommend removing the DD on the PartTran table and
> look for a different way of doing the same thing on a different table that
> is linked to it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> DaveO
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] PartTran Data Directive Consequences
>
> We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data Directive
> BPM that uses PartTran.
>
> We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in the
> past it only took 15seconds.
>
> I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are
> experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.
>
> I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even
> using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using
> PartTran without slowing down the whole works?
>
> Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get those
> to work for us.
>
> Thanks in advance for any input,
>
> Dave Olender (DaveO)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
> already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
> (1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
> Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
> (2) To search through old msg's goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
> (3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links
>
6
Mr Vic: Thanks for the feedback.

I'll admit I have never added a DB trigger before. I'll have to try that on my test platform.

Great suggestion,

Thanks again,

DaveO

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...> wrote:
>
> IMO, PartTran is a bad, bad table to hang anything on. If you were SQL, I’d suggest a [safely tested] db trigger as an alternative. I’ve put triggers on PartTran before with no noticeable performance degradation. Makes sense... Triggers are bottom-layer raw-database tools whereas data-directive BPMs can have too much overhead being middle-layer; especially on the table with the most transactions.
>
> From: DaveO
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] PartTran Data Directive Consequences
>
>
> We are running 9.05.606 (Progress 64bit) and recently added a Data Directive BPM that uses PartTran.
>
> We noticed recently that a single part costing update took 6min where in the past it only took 15seconds.
>
> I know ANY BPM query can be written to "plug up the system" however we are experienced at creating Queries and I don't think that is the problem.
>
> I was just wondering if we have started down a "path of sorrow" by even using the PartTran DataDirective? Is there anyone out there that is using PartTran without slowing down the whole works?
>
> Note: we attempted to use BPM methods, however we were not able to get those to work for us.
>
> Thanks in advance for any input,
>
> Dave Olender (DaveO)
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4924 - Release Date: 04/09/12
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>