[ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations

[Grant]

>> 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
> interchange
> 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.

- Grant


>> 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