![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » DBISAM Technical Support » Support Forums » DBISAM General » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 8 of 8 total |
![]() |
Tue, Feb 20 2007 3:57 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Following another thread I thought I'd try the impact of increasing the buffers so I set the following to 25 times the default
MaxTableDataBufferSize MaxTableDataBufferCount MaxTableIndexBufferSize MaxTableIndexBufferCount MaxTableBlobBufferSize MaxTableBlobBufferCount The result was my optimization routine which I run overnight (as and when I remember, and feel like it) only reached 61% complete on the big table after 12 hours (c130k records, 1.2Gb, custom FTI on several fields) Deleted the code and optimization again runs in c 6 - 7 hours. Roy Lambert |
Tue, Feb 20 2007 7:36 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Roy,
<< Following another thread I thought I'd try the impact of increasing the buffers so I set the following to 25 times the default >> There are diminishing returns when it comes to increasing the buffering, and 25 times is way past the point of getting any return for the increased memory. It doesn't surprise me that the performance gets worse. DBISAM's buffering isn't really intended to be used for buffering huge amounts of data per table. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Wed, Feb 21 2007 3:46 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Tim
So any idea of the maximum useful increment? Roy Lambert |
Wed, Feb 21 2007 10:40 AM | Permanent Link |
"Donat Hebert \(Worldsoft\)" | This has improved performance for our application. I tried various
combinations and it has been quite a while since I changed this on our server ... with Engine do begin Engine.Active := False; EngineSignature := SetSig; CreateTempTablesInDatabase := True; MaxTableDataBufferSize := 131072; // dft 32,768 X 4 MaxTableIndexBufferSize := 131072; // dft 65,536 X 2 Engine.Active := True; end; hth Donat. "Roy Lambert" <roy.lambert@skynet.co.uk> wrote in message news:F8BA1C12-E5EF-448D-8841-6AE2CD8B7274@news.elevatesoft.com... > Tim > > > So any idea of the maximum useful increment? > > Roy Lambert > |
Wed, Feb 21 2007 11:05 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Roy,
<< So any idea of the maximum useful increment? >> I wouldn't exceed more than a couple of megabytes per table buffering type (2 for data, 2 for indexes, 2 for BLOBs). -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Thu, Feb 22 2007 10:29 AM | Permanent Link |
"Donat Hebert \(Worldsoft\)" | Just to share findings with others that may be interested, tested heavying
building, update process on two machines. (Slow machine around 24 minutes, other machine around 14 minute as 'base') Also tested other routines we normally run for impact to ensure not getting degradation somewhere else. The best increases for us were X4 Data and X2 indices or (X4 indices slowed things down a bit ??) X8 Data and X8 indices Found if went too large ie X 12 or 16, speed started to decrease. Wasn't using blobs. Performance increased from 'factory' release is around 10% which certainly helps. Also played with Commit Interval and best overall performance was setting it to 500. I'm sure there are a number of factors impacting that you have to test on your apps. Most performance gains are typically from optimization of SQLs that we typically run or as noted above, better equipment config. Donat. |
Thu, Feb 22 2007 11:16 PM | Permanent Link |
Sam Davis | Roy Lambert wrote:
> Following another thread I thought I'd try the impact of increasing the buffers so I set the following to 25 times the default > > MaxTableDataBufferSize > MaxTableDataBufferCount > MaxTableIndexBufferSize > MaxTableIndexBufferCount > MaxTableBlobBufferSize > MaxTableBlobBufferCount > > The result was my optimization routine which I run overnight (as and when I remember, and feel like it) only reached 61% complete on the big table after 12 hours (c130k records, 1.2Gb, custom FTI on several fields) > > Deleted the code and optimization again runs in c 6 - 7 hours. > > > Roy Lambert Roy, A couple of things. Have you tried optimizing the table using the same index that you're using to access it? If you are going sequentially through the table, that should help. Are you writing to this table? If not then have you tried making it readonly or exclusive? Maybe there is some overhead with locking that is slowing it down. Failing that, you can always buy a big hulking RAM disk. ![]() Sam |
Fri, Feb 23 2007 3:26 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Sam
> A couple of things. Have you tried optimizing the table using the >same index that you're using to access it? If you are going sequentially >through the table, that should help. It gets optimised every so often. In fact optimisation was the test I used to see if increasing the buffers had any good effect. > Are you writing to this table? If not then have you tried making it >readonly or exclusive? Maybe there is some overhead with locking that is >slowing it down. Yup, it is written to. >Failing that, you can always buy a big hulking RAM disk. ![]() OK, good solution. I'm accepting donations. ![]() Roy Lambert |
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 07:31 PM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |