Search results

We've tried taking the NO-LOCK clause out of the query and leaving it in the query:get-next(No-lock) and the other way around but it still locks registers. After that, we tried a similar dynamic query with other tables with and wihtout No-lock and it never locks registers. It's very weird...

Well.....Let's See... Dynamics and Static are running on a client in a network with the server and the client alone. Promon for Dymamics: Records Reads: 70432 Per Sec. 1498.5 Records Lock: 3020 Per Sec. 64.2 Promon for Statics: Records Reads: 49960 Per Sec. 1850.3 Records Lock...

Table1 reads: 23992 64.67 Table2 reads: 23890 64.39 Table3 reads: 23825 64.22 Table4 reads: 16094 43.38

The query return 7907 Registers. Promon R&D: Records Reads 91187 Per Sec: 2399.6 Records Locks 7617 ???????? Per sec: 200.4 Buffer Hits 100%

It's a dynamic query. If I write the same query as static(FOR EACH....) it takes a third of the time. Do you have any idea why? I tried your solution but it takes the same time. It's only 7500 registers, it cannot take that much to return them, or does it? Case 1: For each table1 ...

RealHeaveyDude, Filter-Options contains the Where-Clause "Where Field1 = ...." I used the "USE-INDEX" just to try and see if it was better. Stefan, 1. and 2. I get the same number of registers with both queries. 4. I'm going to use it because the code is neater, but the performance hasn't...

Hi people from the forum! I'm working with Progress 9.1d and I'm having problems with the performance of my reports. I've written two procedures: one uses a "normal" query and the other one uses a dynamic query. The "normal" query takes around 15 seconds to run, while the other one takes more...

I am using SMTPMAIL.p from WebSpeed . The Problem is that the mail never arrives. i Use: RUN value("c:\temp\correo\smtpmail.p") (INPUT "mail.eseargentina.com^cgomez@eseargentina.com^xxxxxx", INPUT "pa_moyano@yahoo.com", INPUT "cgomez@eseargentina.com", INPUT ""...