|
Hi
Currently we are using crystal report to display the data whihc is internally fetching almost 55,234,22 records from DB. Since it the no of records are huge it is taking almost 7 minutes to display the report which is very poor performance in nature.
Can anyone suggest me some useful sites to make it faster and can recommend some free tool to measure the exact point which is causing the issue?
Thanks & Regards,
SMA
|
|
|
|
|
sma123# wrote: Since it the no of records are huge it is taking almost 7 minutes to display the report which is very poor performance in nature.
Stop right there; that is not poor performance. Something taking a lot of time does not mean that it does not perform.
What's the size of a single record? Just use Google to look up the size of each field that has no length. Now multiply that by the amount of records. Now take into consideration that it is a Crystal Report, not some text-only output.
You could start with pasting the query here; you'd also want to download a profiler for Sql, and/or use SQL Management Studio to see if you can optimize the query.
That's the fetching-the-data part. The other part would be getting the fetched data into a report-format. If you do not need all the fancy stuff that CR provides, then try writing a simple HTML-report.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Eddy, this is not a performance problem, seems more like a poor implementation of user requirements.
Am I correct in understanding that the report fetches 55 million records, but does it display that much data ?
Displaying 55 detail records per page would generate a 1 million page report. Really ? Does the user need to see all of that data ?
Is there any way to create summary data at an off-peak time so the report can generate from that summary data ?
What about implementing an asynchronous report generator where the user selects the input parameters, then "kicks off" the report in the background. The report could generate an HTML or PDF report, then send an email to the requestor with a hyperlink to the report when it is complete.
You would be surprised how agreeable a user would be to a solution like this. They kick off a report, then they can move on to something else while it generates. The email tells them when it is done.
Hope these ideas help. 
|
|
|
|
|
David Mujica wrote: I agree with Eddy, this is not a performance problem, seems more like a poor implementation of user requirements.
I think your answer is more correct however.
David Mujica wrote: Really ? Does the user need to see all of that data ?
No user needs to see that. Even if they say they want to see it they in fact want to look something up and that is what one should do instead.
|
|
|
|
|
More complete and definitely friendlier 
|
|
|
|
|
That is not a report it is a data dump and should not be produced via a reporting tool. Dump the data via CSV direct to the hard drive and give it to the user unformatted.
As suggested, this is a lousy implementation of the user requirements, go back and find out what the user wants with that many records.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
What would you call a field that can have the states Public or Private, as in being a publicly or privately owned/operated business?
modified 23-Jun-14 4:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
In programming, Public, Private (and friends) are called access modifiers, the state achieved by assigning one of them called accessibility level - that may give you a name, like:
AccessLevel
Accessibility
Access
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I can see that I wasn't clear enough in my question (I've updated it).
Sorry about that.
I meant: What do you call a field that refers to privately or publicly owned businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership?
I'm not sure now I understand you however...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see you've already got Ownership as the answer. You can also try BusinessType?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have just installed MySQL on Linux server.
The server has SSH on it as well.
Now I started facing problems (:
My .NET application is the problem....
How will connect using the MySQLConection if SSH is enabled on the server?
I am getting the following error:
Unable to connect to any of the specified MySQL hosts
when I try a basic MySQLConnection conection string.. anything special to add for the SSH?
Thanks
Jassim
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
I would have a look at connection strings website[^] this is the MySql page on there is a couple of SSL connection string examples
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
I tried this but same problem:
sql_connection = new MySqlConnection("server = 10.0.0.111; Port = 3306; Database = bizcards; Uid = root; Pwd = mujtaba; SslMode = Preferred;");
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
For one of my project I need to create a read only database. I'm authorized to create INSERT and SELECT queries but not UPDATE or DELETE. To do that I suppose I need to add a DATE_STAMP column on each table and adapt all the SELECT to filter only the latest version of my record.
Is this realizable in term of performance, size of data, queries? Do you have suggestions, documentations, links about the subject.
Thank you,
|
|
|
|
|
Of course you do not talk about 'read only' database as SQL means it - 'read only' is a state of the database when no-one can do any write functions, including insert.
What you are talking about is that your inserts are fixed and final, can't be removed or updated...
for that you have to learn about GRANT[^]/DENY[^]/REVOKE[^] of SQL permissions...
For instance, this will prevent from user MyUser to run UPDATE and DELETE queries on table MyTable...
DENY UPDATE, DELETE ON MyTable TO MyUser
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
B413 wrote: Is this realizable in term of performance, size of data, queries
With proper indexing and eventually partitioning it won't be a problem.
Harddisk space is cheap nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
I would call this auditing, unless I have the requirement completely wrong, where you need to track changes but retain only the current information in the table. This is one of the few valid uses for triggers spit.
Use a trigger to fire on inset/update/delete, on insert and delete grab the ID, you don't need each field value here, on update grab the before and after values, the ID on the user and shove them into an audit table.
If you are doing bulk inserts (etl data in) then turn off the triggers before processing.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I think hell just froze over.
Did you just recommend the use of a trigger? (spit)
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Did you just recommend the use of a trigger
Yeah I feel dirty, had to do it again in the c# forum for the same reason ugh.
It must be the change in local, I'm on holidays in Cairns, it must be affecting my vitriol levels.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
If it's of any consolation, I'm totally agreeing with you not just in general on this subject but also about this exception.
|
|
|
|
|
What you suggest is one of my possibilities but I would like to investigate on the possibility only to allow INSERT and SELECT.
I my case I need to prove that NOBODY can never hack the system and modify a tracking data. A trigger can be deactivated. I would like to GRANT only INSERT and SELECT to all users.
I saw system build for FDA rules where developers or DBA can still have all the power on production database and I saw them removing audit data on production. Wrong and testing data in this case but where is the limit between this and falsification.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so this has nothing to do with read only, it is about locking down your database with enough security to pacify your clients paranoia. Good luck, delving into the high levels of database security is not a trivial excercise. Personally I would try and get hold of a DBA/expert in the area if your client can justify the expense.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about paranoia... unit testing, business and database testing has been for client paranoia and audit validation. In my case it's about respecting law and users protection.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
