SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 08:36 PM

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FFBD.2998B4A2
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"

we had lot of performance issues with UDR's (it was UDR's written in C"),
the main problem was that it is very difficult to get fragment elimination
using UDR, we had to write duplicate functions with the fragment expression
hardcoded in the the UDR just to get fragment elimination and parallism.
also, UDA's are very slow, no matter what you do, they run as a single
threaded process.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto

wner-informix-list@iiug.org]On
Behalf Of Sean Baker
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:02 AM
To: informix-list@iiug.org
Subject: UDR Performance Question

Hello All,

We've been using SPL routines with some very good success the past year (IDS
version 9.3, soon to be 9.4, running on AIX 4.3, soon to be 5L). We are
also going to start using Java UDR's as well, and possibly some UDR's
written in C.

My question is, regarding straight performance of getting data out of the
IDS database and returning the results, which UDR platform has the best
performance (SPL, Java, C)? In my mind, I would think SPL would be the
fastest since it's basically internal to the Informix database. As far as
procedural logic performance (processing of flow control statements), I
can't imagine there is much difference between the 3. Is there an obvious
choice where performance is concerned? Can someone point me to some
documentation on this subject?

Thanks,

Sean.
- - - -
Sean Baker, Application Development
Money Mailer, LLC
14271 Corporate Drive
Garden Grove, CA 92843

714.265.8288 ph
714.265.8362 fax

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FFBD.2998B4A2
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>UDR Performance Question</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4731.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>we had
lot of performance issues with UDR's (it was UDR's written in C"), the main
problem was that it is very difficult to get fragment elimination using UDR, we
had to write duplicate functions with the fragment expression hardcoded in
the the UDR just to get fragment elimination and parallism. also, UDA's are very
slow, no matter what you do, they run as a single threaded
process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org
[mailto

wner-informix-list@iiug.org]On Behalf Of Sean
Baker Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:02 AM To:
informix-list@iiug.org Subject: UDR Performance
Question </DIV>
Hello All, 
We've been using SPL routines with some very good
success the past year (IDS version 9.3, soon to be 9.4, running on AIX 4.3,
soon to be 5L).  We are also going to start using Java UDR's as well, and
possibly some UDR's written in C.
My question is, regarding straight performance of
getting data out of the IDS database and returning the results, which UDR
platform has the best performance (SPL, Java, C)?  In my mind, I would
think SPL would be the fastest since it's basically internal to the Informix
database.  As far as procedural logic performance (processing of flow
control statements), I can't imagine there is much difference between the
3.  Is there an obvious choice where performance is concerned?  Can
someone point me to some documentation on this subject?
Thanks, 
Sean. - - -
- Sean Baker, Application
Development Money Mailer, LLC
 14271 Corporate Drive Garden Grove, CA 92843 
714.265.8288 ph 714.265.8362 fax </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FFBD.2998B4A2--
sending to informix-list

#2 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 08:36 PM

"Savio Pinto (s)" <spinto@cap.org> wrote in message news:<c201su$2d7$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3FFBD.2998B4A2
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> we had lot of performance issues with UDR's (it was UDR's written in C"),
> the main problem was that it is very difficult to get fragment elimination
> using UDR, we had to write duplicate functions with the fragment expression
> hardcoded in the the UDR just to get fragment elimination and parallism.
> also, UDA's are very slow, no matter what you do, they run as a single
> threaded process.

What kind of bullshit is this?

a) What on earth does a UDF have to do with fragment elimination? If
you're putting SQL into the UDF, then that's the design problem.
UDFs are best thought of a procedural sub-routine, not as a
stored-procedure. (If your UDF touched BLOBs, then you might have a
point).

b) The UDAs were designed *specifically* to work with partitioned
tables (to exploit parallism). Did you define all of the UDA functions?
(INIT, ITER, MERGE, FINAL) And did you set them all up correctly?

Read Jacques Roy's excellent books on the subject. There are customers
using UDAs that require the parrallelism to get where they need to
go.

Please post details.

#3 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 08:37 PM

Paul G. Brown wrote:

> What kind of bullshit is this?

It's OK, Paul, it's just a user.

)

--
"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

#4 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 08:37 PM

Obnoxio The Clown <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c20ll3$1ngndb$5@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Paul G. Brown wrote:
>
> > What kind of bullshit is this?
>
> It's OK, Paul, it's just a user.

)

But I like users.

It occurs that the poster might be a troll, however. Darn.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

RE: UDR Performance Question