Re: Performance

From: Jack <none_at_INVALIDmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:10:18 GMT
Message-ID: <uDrPg.43$CJ.26@read3.inet.fi>

"Frank van Bortel" <frank.van.bortel_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:eegin1$1sa$1_at_news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Jack schreef:
>
>> Surely tuning migth give 5-10% or more and maybe CBO that same,
>> but not 500-1000%
>
> 1000% = factor 10. I've seen factor 40 by just rewriting statements.
>
>> But best and cheapest way wuold be upgrade and new hardware.
>
> In the light of the above, did you still believe that? Oh sure,
> it's the easiest way, and it actually will bring something, so
> it's also a safe way.
> Just like "nobody ever got fired because they advised BB"
>
> Tune. And upgrade, so your test and production at least run
> the same versions
>
> --
> Regards,
> Frank van Bortel
>
> Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

I tested that function:
Time: 00:00:00.01

How to tune that better? Cannot even measure.

That upgrade would be good, but it is not up to me. Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 02:10:18 CDT