> Have been trying to reply via HoF but it won't go through so I'm trying this.
Actually, your previous replies did go through.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and
Have been trying to reply via HoF but it won't go through so I'm trying this.
> - Obviously, the feasibility of either option is dependent
> on the process and use cases themselves.
Of course. We realize that.
These are on demand processes. We continuously monitor, tweak, and tune
database per
> - Obviously, the feasibility of either option is dependent
> on the process and use cases themselves.
Of course. We realize that.
These are on demand processes. We continuously monitor, tweak, and tune
database performance. We're looking for additional improvement elsewhere as
well.
Thanks
> - Obviously, the feasibility of either option is dependent
> on the process and use cases themselves.
Of course. We realize that.
These are on demand processes. We continuously monitor, tweak, and tune
database performance. We're looking for additional improvement elsewhere as
well.
Thanks
Also, keep in mind - and I'm speculating a bit here on your process - if
you have just 6 individual queries that run in a single threaded, linear
fashion and they take 6 minutes to execute, running them all concurrently
may take just as long as it's sounds like your DB server may be taxed or
these
> We have processes that assemble reports from as many as 6 individual queries.
> Currently the queries run sequentially so the
> related report cannot be assembled and displayed until after all queries have
> completed. Users often have to wait several
> minutes for their report. They are not h
6 matches
Mail list logo
