[ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations
emailgrant at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 17:03:53 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
> - Grant
I think the above is evidence that this is a memory problem. If I use
the workaround I mentioned, the process uses about 7% memory instead
of 25%. Does this mean my job is too complex? Should I add memory to
my server? I'm on IC 5.6.1.
>> 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