I don't think that this is a high enough percent secondaries to really cause
a performance degradation (anyone who disagrees please respond.)  Average
chain length and it's variability look very nice.  I don't see any problems
here!  What am I missing everyone?

-dtd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Schofield [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Transact database program getting slower
>
>
> Hello Everyone
>
> Thanks for the very many replies.
>
> Unfortunately I do not have adager or robelle software,
> therefore I have not
> got howmessy.  I have emailed Robelle about getting a copy.
>
> I do however have a listing produced by DBLOADSX from Beechglen.
>
> The program was run remotely and the info faxed to me.  I
> will list all the
> info
>
> Capacity 6000011
> Num Entries 3010823
> Load Factor 50.1
> Secondaries 22.1
> Max Pgs 0
> Block Factor 13
> Max Chain 10
> Avg Chain 1.28
> Std Dev 0.56
> Expected Blocks 1.00
> Avg Blocks 1.00
> Elongation 1.00
> Number of Primaries 2335771
> Number of Secondaries 675052
> Number of Chains 558256
> External Pointers 0
> Contiguous Pointers 675052
> Total Blocks 461540
> Full Blocks 15204
>
> I think I got everything !
>
> Is this any use ? Does this give anybody any clues ?
>
> Extra info.  This database started at 1 million capacity  and has been
> increased several times since then.  Could this be affecting
> the hashing
> algorithm ?  I read somewhere that the algorithm uses the
> capacity of the
> set.  Is this the original capacity perhaps ?
>
> Hopefully I will get a copy of Howmessy from Robelle
>
> Thanks again for all you ideas
>
> Chris
>