[ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations
emailgrant at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 14:16:20 UTC 2009
> I do not have a categories table to test this ... But 1) your categories
> table probably has round about 100-1000 max results, so you can put
> ml=999999999999999 and it won't be making any difference. Then you feed that
> to the innerloop, where again you probably have 100-5000 results per
> category so again the 9999999 match limit does not really get reached anyway
> So your fast workaround is eventually returning all products, but it breaks
> the returns up in pieces ... Less data to handle at once ...
> Anyway in case you have a huge speed difference with 10 or 10000 then it
> could be your IC version (I've tested on 5.7.1) , but if 10 and 10000 are
> similar in speed and the problem really is with the 999999 then perhaps you
> want to monitor you environment, check what happens when you do the query
> (swap etc).
Is this informative? It looks like the process which is running the
job is using quite a bit of memory, or maybe this much is normal?
Mem: 1028780k total, 973860k used, 54920k free, 91364k buffers
Swap: 2008116k total, 34188k used, 1973928k free, 290136k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
31789 interc 20 0 261m 252m 6324 R 97.2 25.1 2:39.70
31754 interc 20 0 69632 57m 3968 S 0.0 5.7 0:01.77 interchange
> I also still do not understand that it is apparently for you working as:
> processing <long break> processing <long break> processing <long break>
> For me it 'thinks' and then put a processing blob all at once on screen.
>> So it seems like IC is getting bogged down when there are too many
>> matches in a loop search. Should that happen? Does it indicate a
>> problem somewhere in my system?
>> I tried many times to narrow the problem down to a certain section of
>> my "processing" code but I always got nowhere. I have the problem in
>> two separate loop searches of two different tables.
>> - Grant
More information about the interchange-users