<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi John:<br><br> I found your results intriguing.<br><br> I suspect that certain underlying functions work better relative to others on a true 32 bit machine<br> than they do on a 64-bit machine.<br><br>Regards,<br>Peter <br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">From: jstires@ebds.com<br>To: powerh-l@lists.sowder.com<br>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:58:56 -0400<br>Subject: Performance Questions and a little need for some education.<br><br>
<style>
.ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';}
.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass span.EC_EmailStyle17
{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:windowtext;}
.ExternalClass .EC_MsoChpDefault
{;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;}
.ExternalClass div.EC_Section1
{page:Section1;}
</style>
<div class="EC_Section1">
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">Thanks for the input. I may need just a little more to
put my mind to rest on this, though,</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">I have run similar bench tests before and the results have
always been consistent. This is the first time I have seen them vary.
The only thing I see different in this case, is the Titanium machine and a
little later version of PowerHouse. I am wondering if there is some
tuning that is done on the Titanium machine that is unique to cause this kind
of results. The other possible cause might be that COGNOS has refined QTP
to manage its baggage much better than it used to do. As it is, the
results on the ALPHA are consistent to what I have seen in the
past. It is just on the Titanium that I am seeing such a difference.</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">In this case the output file is just a simple subfile.
There are no SORTs, or PARMs. The QUIZ has only GETSYSTEMVALs to make up for
an extract request in the QTP used only to set 3 Global TEMPs and GETSYSEMVALs
are only evaluated once in QUIZ.</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">In the past, I have never seen QTP out-perform QUIZ for
simply extracting data and dumping it to a subfile, especially where there is
no totaling or summarizing going included. In this case the data is
getting dumped into a subfile which is then renamed after the extract is complete.</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">My understanding is that DEFINES are done in registers while
TEMPs use memory, which easily explains why DEFINEs have to be reevaluated and
TEMPs do not. All things being equal, and no DEFINE cascading, DEFINES
would be faster. Register access much faster than general memory.
It is only when you have multiple references, the cascading, that DEFINEs that
the “fast” DEFINEs have to reevaluate and slow performance.
Register values are only transient.</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">QTP, as you say is robust and carries a tremendous amount
flexibility, but with that, come a lot of baggage that is loaded whether it is
used or not. Whereas QUIZ does not carry such a large amount of baggage
and, generally gets through files pretty awful fast by comparison for simple
extracts. </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">Let me show a little more of my lack of knowledge and ask
what (IMHO) is?</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
<p class="EC_MsoNormal">John</p>
</div><br /><hr />Stay in the loop and chat with friends, right from your inbox! <a href='http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671349' target='_new'>Learn how!</a></body>
</html>