Ben,
I am also having performance issues with reports driven by views.
So instead of using a view, I create a temporary table, populate it and use
it to drive the report. This makes the report run noticeably faster.
Others might not see the boost in performance, but, for the reports I make
(which uses a lot of stored procedure calls and multiple table joins), the
boost is noticeable.
On a second note, using Windows NT/2000 and RBase 2000 for Windows v6.5++, I
noticed that when a report runs, memory use increase steadily (as expected),
however, upon completion of the report, the memory used doesn't seem to be
released (at least not according to the task managers of Windows NT/2000)
[and yes, the variables are cleared, cursors and temporary tables are
dropped]. Hence, the more reports I run in succession, the longer they
complete.
This is where I saw the difference between Win95/98 and WinNT/2K (in regards
to memory usage). WinNT/2k clients are more generous in giving memory to
applications than Win95/98.
Are there any settings in RBase or Windows that might help?
TIA
Rommel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Ben Petersen
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reports and Views
Hi all,
RBW 6.1a & 6.5
Earlier I posted a problem when an RBase report was driven by a
view that included a Union. I eventually solved that problem by
using the same union in a subordinate view. Only to find another
report that crashed in much the same way (taking RBW to the
Desktop with an exception error) when looking up values from any
one of three different views.
Both reports are fairly simple and driven by the same view. All
header / footer variables are set prior to printing, the 14 remaining
variables are evaluated for each detail line and are pre-defined in
the calling cmd file.
Has anyone else experienced the same sort of thing? At this point
I'm stumped.
TIA,
Ben
