In general, when building a client/server application (Remedy server is the client, DB is the server in this example), it's best to limit the communication between the client and the server to the absolute minimum necessary to get the work done. In this case, forcing every submit to a table to do 1 extra call to the db to get the next id, vs knowing what the next id is already in memory reduces the number of calls to the db, thus 'should' increase performance....Rick has stated numerous times over the years that the caching of id's slowed performance....I've never personally tested the different scenarios so I can't speak to them....I agree that the 'everyone needs this' approach that BMC took at the time seemed a bit heavy handed, but at the same time, in general it doesn't seem to 'hurt' things by having them run this way...so...I typically don't bother changing the defaults unless I have reason in a specific situation.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Grooms, Frederick W < frederick.w.gro...@xo.com> wrote: > ** > > Where is there a difference in the time to create the next ID > > UPDATE ARSCHEMA SET NEXTID = NEXTID + 1 WHERE SCHEMAID = x > > UPDATE ARSCHEMA SET NEXTID = NEXTID + 100 WHERE SCHEMAID = x > > It is not like the database goes 1+1+1+1+1+1… with a save to the file > each time. > > > > My db bottleneck was pure ARS workflow. Legal required an audit trail on > some 15 fields of the main form. One user doing an update on the main > form could then generate 15 new child records in an audit table. Multiply > that by 200 users and you get a possibility of 3000 new records at a given > time for a single table. Actual results in the SQL.log showed that in a > 5 minute timeframe the Set NEXTID was called for the audit table 23 times > when the size was set to 20 (460 new records in the audit table in 5 > minutes from 1 ARS server). Bumping the size to 100 eliminated the > Oracle db_lock contention errors. > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:27 PM > > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: What's the NextId? > > > > ** > > Abhijeet, my results were repeated and conclusive. Here is the only > logical explanation for my findings that makes sense: > > > > There is a time cost to the DB call for Entry IDs. The cost increases > incrementally the more that are requested at once. The thought is that 100 > individual requests will take substantially more time than retrieving 100 > IDs in one request. That thought has been proven to be correct - it's why > the feature was added. However, the difference in time was tested against a > system that had multiple sources (NMS) attempting to grab multiple Entry > IDs at the same time, not a normal system without those multiple outside > requests, because it was the first environment that was reporting the > problem with performance. > > > > On a system where the volume of IDs is high enough to cause a system > bottleneck at the DB ID request, *which requires multiple simultaneous > requests from different sources*, that bottleneck costs more additional > time than is lost by the increased time it takes to request multiple IDs at > one time. However, on a system that is not bound by the Next ID calls to > the DB, or has only a single source (AR System) requesting IDs, there is no > advantage gained by the multiple requests, because the time "gained" by > having a cached ID is negligible - too small to even notice. And, as my > testing proved (to my surprise), there was an increasing net cost to system > performance as the number of IDs requested in a single call grew. This > must be because the time it takes to gather, say, 100 records in one call > is actually *higher* than it is to do 100 individual calls - IF AR System > is the only source of those calls. The simple correlation is that if AR > System is the only thing generating new Request ID requests to the DB, you > don't need, and will not benefit from, a number larger than 1. If you have > multiple outside entities creating large number of records at once, you > very well may benefit from it. > > > > My tests that showed decreasing performance as the Next Id block grew were > creating about 1.5 million records, but, and this is important - all were > from the same source - AR System workflow. There were no other > simultaneous demands on the table, and few on the system. Therefore, the > system of generating one ID at a time had a cumulatively lower transaction > time than it did when it had to wait for multiples to be retrieved and then > allocated individually. The BMC Engineer, who I know to be very smart and > experienced with Remedy, had no explanation for my results. I believe this > to be that BMC didn't test against a control (normal) system, and therefore > had no data on its effect on them. > > > > Why then, they chose to recommend that setting to all customers, is a > mystery to me. > > > Rick Cook > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Gadgil, Abhijeet <abhijeet_gad...@bmc.com> > wrote: > > ** > > Rick, I do not think that is accurate. > > Logically, if the block size is 100 then the server will access the DB > once to retrieve the next block id every 100 records. If it is 1, then the > server goes to the DB for every record. > > Later cannot be faster. > > > > Further, to answer the original question, returning the next id in an API > call would mean preventing creation of ids by anyone other than the caller > until the id has actually been used -- otherwise the information might be > obsolete before the client receives it. That is the reason for not exposing > it via an API > > > > Regards, > > Abhijeet > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > *Sent:* 13 October 2017 02:12 > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: What's the NextId? > > > > ** > > Here's the skinny on that. I got this from the engineer who built that > feature, btw. > > > > The problem was that system performance was being constricted around the > action of getting the NextId for a record when multiple sources (say, > Netcool and HPOV) were throwing tons of requests at the (Incident) form > at the same time. The process of getting each Next Entry ID in individual > DB calls was bottlenecking the process of creating the records. So that's > why BMC came up with a way to pre-allocate those in bulk, so that only > every N times (whatever the number is set to) would an actual call to the > DB to get Next IDs be necessary. The transaction time to retrieve 1 or 100 > wasn't much different, and those customers with multiple programs requiring > many simultaneous record creations saw a marked performance increase. It > was, and is, a good feature add. > > > > So (then a miracle occurs) and BMC announces that this particular corner > case had a solution that everyone should benefit from, and announced that > the number should be 100 for *all* customers. I tested this back in 7.6.04 > against a RH server, with settings at 1, 10, 100, and 1000, and found that > performance was actually NEGATIVELY affected the higher the number was > set. It wasn't a huge difference (10%~), but it was a clear, repeatable > one for which BMC's engineer had no explanation. It is why I have always > advocated that unless a customer has the specific set of circumstances that > caused the feature to be beneficial, there is no real benefit to setting > the number larger than 1. And there are minor drawbacks to doing so, the > current subject being one of them. > > > > Every time I ask someone from BMC to justify a larger number to the > average customer, they repeat the party line, unaware of the history behind > the feature. I will continue to tilt at this windmill until someone at BMC > shows me some performance testing numbers that justify this setting for the > entire customer base. > > Rick > > > > On Oct 12, 2017 13:30, "Thomas Miskiewicz" <tmisk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ** > > i.e. there is no hack to find out the nextID before it actually gets > submitted? > > Apart from that, I really don’t understand why BMC makes such a fuss > around the nextID. Why can’t they just provide a special command > GET-NEXTID? > > > > Thomas > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:26 PM, LJ LongWing <lj.longw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ** > > There are no interfaces that I'm aware of to ask a specific server what > the next id it will hand out for a specific form is > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Thomas Miskiewicz <tmisk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello List, > > with NextID Block size being set to 100 —> is it possible the find out > using the API which will be the next Request-ID that the server will assign > to a request? Or what other options do I have to find out? > > > --Thomas > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
