We are running on W2000 server and XP over Oracle 10g using oracle 9 client. The client is The Motor Accidents Board of Tasmania (MAIB) and the application developed by Prologic (IT consultants)
- Founder/Site Admin
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: 24 Feb 2017, 09:12
- Location: Gouda, The Netherlands
to TD31. I did not notice this yet, but I will test specifically on this now.
Performance has a great importance to us here, so if there is really an issue here, it should be fixed !
I wanted to check that issue with TD 3.1 vs TD 4.2 and of course TD 5.1 but I'm affraid I did not found a way to show this issue with this information alone
the calling routines parameter is derived from the base functions parameter I try to do that, but obviously I can't see an obvious difference with TD 3.1 vs TD 4.2 neither 5.1 so my testcase must be wrong.
I like to focus only on function call performance with UDV parameter as it seems to be the issue. Can you provide us a testcase. I attach mine TD 3.1 but it does not show your issue. Thanks for additional details you can provide or correction you can put in mine to show the problem.
I have attached some timings and code snippets that illustrate the issue we are having. These are taken from the full app, I have not got a small test case but hopefully this will illustrate the issue more clearly.
If there is more material that I can provide just ask.
Kind regards, David Hill
It is quite large and double compressed (winrar & zip) to get under the 2mB limit here.
In my environment, the matched parameter calls take 0.35 seconds and the derived one takes 4.5 !
Hope this helps track this down. Sorry for the delay with the sample, it seemed so serious I assumed there would be plenty of other examples.
Running this example on 3.1 gives a similar time for the matched call and 0.9 secs for the derived which does not seem to explain the full story of why our app is so much slower in some sections changing from 3.1 to 4.2 although the sample does not exactly match the application where the classes have many more variables and functions. But it does still seem to take a LOT longer with the derived parameters. I suspect 1.5 with its less strict parameter typing may be have been better and will try that when time is available.
I did try this on 1.51 and found that it runs significantly faster with NO variation between between using base class or derived parameters. If you can bring 5.1 up to the speed of 1.51 now that would be a bonus.
The client has decided not to implement 4.2 at this stage due to the speed issue which means I may have to retro fit a series of software revisions back into 3.1
Yes performance problem started since TD 2000 and got improved mainly in TD 3.1 AFAIK to be close to what TD 1.51 was..there still might be some areas of concern like you showed us. TD 5.1 shows indeed some performance problem in this specific case even VS TD 4.2.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: [Ccbot] and 3 guests