Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?

5 posts in Performance and Tuning Last posting was on 2008-03-20 16:42:17.0Z
Jools Posted on 2008-03-19 21:36:03.0Z
Sender: 2935.47e18363.1804289383@sybase.com
From: Jools
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning
Subject: CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?
X-Mailer: WebNews to Mail Gateway v1.1t
Message-ID: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.22.241.41
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.22.241.41
Date: 19 Mar 2008 13:36:03 -0800
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1205962563 10.22.241.41 (19 Mar 2008 13:36:03 -0800)
X-Original-Trace: 19 Mar 2008 13:36:03 -0800, 10.22.241.41
Lines: 16
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning:10710
Article PK: 89327

Hello all, this is my first post! I'm working on a
performance problem. I use the CT library to access a 38 gig
database on Sybase 12.5 running on Solaris 10. Recently
enhanced the code to interrogate the server messages instead
of just clearing them (a couple of extra ct_diag calls per
query) and also now setting CS_VERSION_125 instead of
CS_VERSION_100 on the connection. Somewhere I seem to have
incurred a performance hit, roughly 10% longer to run the
application. I've tried backing out the extra calls to
ct_diag - no appreciable affect. I'm now thinking maybe the
change to CS_VESRION_125 might be causing the problem. Does
anyone know about this? Could the enabling of the new
features (wide rows/columns etc) have introduced a
performance overhead?

Cheers Jools


"Mark A. Parsons" <iron_horse Posted on 2008-03-19 23:07:25.0Z
From: "Mark A. Parsons" <iron_horse@no_spamola.compuserve.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning
Subject: Re: CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?
References: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com>
In-Reply-To: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <47e19cad$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 19 Mar 2008 15:07:25 -0800
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1205968045 10.22.241.152 (19 Mar 2008 15:07:25 -0800)
X-Original-Trace: 19 Mar 2008 15:07:25 -0800, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 22
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning:10711
Article PK: 89325

You'll probably get a better/quicker response if you post in one of the connectivity newsgroups, eg,
sybase.public.connectivity.open_client

Jools wrote:
> Hello all, this is my first post! I'm working on a
> performance problem. I use the CT library to access a 38 gig
> database on Sybase 12.5 running on Solaris 10. Recently
> enhanced the code to interrogate the server messages instead
> of just clearing them (a couple of extra ct_diag calls per
> query) and also now setting CS_VERSION_125 instead of
> CS_VERSION_100 on the connection. Somewhere I seem to have
> incurred a performance hit, roughly 10% longer to run the
> application. I've tried backing out the extra calls to
> ct_diag - no appreciable affect. I'm now thinking maybe the
> change to CS_VESRION_125 might be causing the problem. Does
> anyone know about this? Could the enabling of the new
> features (wide rows/columns etc) have introduced a
> performance overhead?
>
> Cheers Jools


"Mark A. Parsons" <iron_horse Posted on 2008-03-19 23:10:20.0Z
From: "Mark A. Parsons" <iron_horse@no_spamola.compuserve.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning
Subject: Re: CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?
References: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com> <47e19cad$1@forums-1-dub>
In-Reply-To: <47e19cad$1@forums-1-dub>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <47e19d5c@forums-1-dub>
Date: 19 Mar 2008 15:10:20 -0800
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1205968220 10.22.241.152 (19 Mar 2008 15:10:20 -0800)
X-Original-Trace: 19 Mar 2008 15:10:20 -0800, vip152.sybase.com
Lines: 34
X-Authenticated-User: TeamSybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning:10712
Article PK: 89326

In the meantime you could try to get your DBA to monitor your connection into the dataserver for any performance issues,
to include but not limited to:

- capture query plans
- capture SQL text being submitted by application

It'll probably help if the DBA can compare activity between the old/fast version and the new/slow version.

I'm also *assuming* that the old/fast and new/slow versions are running against the same dataserver, with no
modifications to the dataserver configurations.

Mark A. Parsons wrote:
> You'll probably get a better/quicker response if you post in one of the
> connectivity newsgroups, eg, sybase.public.connectivity.open_client
>
>
>
> Jools wrote:
>> Hello all, this is my first post! I'm working on a
>> performance problem. I use the CT library to access a 38 gig
>> database on Sybase 12.5 running on Solaris 10. Recently
>> enhanced the code to interrogate the server messages instead
>> of just clearing them (a couple of extra ct_diag calls per
>> query) and also now setting CS_VERSION_125 instead of
>> CS_VERSION_100 on the connection. Somewhere I seem to have
>> incurred a performance hit, roughly 10% longer to run the
>> application. I've tried backing out the extra calls to
>> ct_diag - no appreciable affect. I'm now thinking maybe the
>> change to CS_VESRION_125 might be causing the problem. Does
>> anyone know about this? Could the enabling of the new
>> features (wide rows/columns etc) have introduced a
>> performance overhead?
>>
>> Cheers Jools


Sherlock, Kevin Posted on 2008-03-20 16:41:16.0Z
From: "Sherlock, Kevin" <kevin.sherlock@teamsybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning
References: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com>
Subject: Re: CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <47e293ac$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 20 Mar 2008 08:41:16 -0800
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1206031276 10.22.241.152 (20 Mar 2008 08:41:16 -0800)
X-Original-Trace: 20 Mar 2008 08:41:16 -0800, vip152.sybase.com
X-Authenticated-User: teamsybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning:10713
Article PK: 89329

This is crossposted to sybase.public.connectivity.open_client and appears to
be making some progress there.

<Jools> wrote in message news:47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com...
> Hello all, this is my first post! I'm working on a
> performance problem. I use the CT library to access a 38 gig
> database on Sybase 12.5 running on Solaris 10. Recently
> enhanced the code to interrogate the server messages instead
> of just clearing them (a couple of extra ct_diag calls per
> query) and also now setting CS_VERSION_125 instead of
> CS_VERSION_100 on the connection. Somewhere I seem to have
> incurred a performance hit, roughly 10% longer to run the
> application. I've tried backing out the extra calls to
> ct_diag - no appreciable affect. I'm now thinking maybe the
> change to CS_VESRION_125 might be causing the problem. Does
> anyone know about this? Could the enabling of the new
> features (wide rows/columns etc) have introduced a
> performance overhead?
>
> Cheers Jools


Sherlock, Kevin Posted on 2008-03-20 16:42:17.0Z
From: "Sherlock, Kevin" <kevin.sherlock@teamsybase.com>
Newsgroups: sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning
References: <47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com> <47e293ac$1@forums-1-dub>
Subject: Re: CS_VERSION_100 vs. CS_VERSION_125 perf cost?
Lines: 30
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: vip152.sybase.com
Message-ID: <47e293e9$1@forums-1-dub>
Date: 20 Mar 2008 08:42:17 -0800
X-Trace: forums-1-dub 1206031337 10.22.241.152 (20 Mar 2008 08:42:17 -0800)
X-Original-Trace: 20 Mar 2008 08:42:17 -0800, vip152.sybase.com
X-Authenticated-User: teamsybase
Path: forums-1-dub!not-for-mail
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.ase.performance+tuning:10714
Article PK: 89328

ooops. sorry for the noise. If i would have read the response from Mark
suggesting that you crosspost the question, i wouldn't have stated the same
again. sorry ...

"Sherlock, Kevin" <kevin.sherlock@teamsybase.com> wrote in message
news:47e293ac$1@forums-1-dub...
> This is crossposted to sybase.public.connectivity.open_client and appears
> to be making some progress there.
>
> <Jools> wrote in message news:47e18743.2976.1681692777@sybase.com...
>> Hello all, this is my first post! I'm working on a
>> performance problem. I use the CT library to access a 38 gig
>> database on Sybase 12.5 running on Solaris 10. Recently
>> enhanced the code to interrogate the server messages instead
>> of just clearing them (a couple of extra ct_diag calls per
>> query) and also now setting CS_VERSION_125 instead of
>> CS_VERSION_100 on the connection. Somewhere I seem to have
>> incurred a performance hit, roughly 10% longer to run the
>> application. I've tried backing out the extra calls to
>> ct_diag - no appreciable affect. I'm now thinking maybe the
>> change to CS_VESRION_125 might be causing the problem. Does
>> anyone know about this? Could the enabling of the new
>> features (wide rows/columns etc) have introduced a
>> performance overhead?
>>
>> Cheers Jools
>
>