Thanks
Stephen,
I'd used the approach of sandwiching workflow between two other
active links as you've described previously, but I had not considered the idea
of looping it for a more accurate result. I've since tried this, and
it works great.
Eric
Cleereman
__20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___-----Original Message-----**
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Heider, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Optimization questionShafqat,To test, issue a Set Fields to a temp date/time field the value of $TIMESTAMP$ from an Active Link that fires just before the AL (or two ALs) you want to test. Then issue another Set Fields with $TIMESTAMP$ to another temp date/time field in a separate Active Link that fires after the ALs you want to test. This will give you the time it took to run.With only one or two ALs to test the difference between the first timestamp and the second timestamp will likely be 0 or 1 second. So... to get a more accurate test loop over the AL (or two ALs) 1000 times. Then compare the timestamps. This approach can work with just about any performance timing of Remedy code.HTHStephen
** Hi List
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shafqat Ayaz
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Optimization question
a question on optimization,
will 1 Active Link with 15 actions ( for example just Change Fields only ) run faster than split into 2 consecutive Active Links with 8 actions and 7 actions?
I have not actually been able to time it, but my guess would be the first option, any ideas?
kind regards
shafqat
Shafqat Ayaz
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___
