Would an unload/reload clear this up?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simonsen, Larry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: Dave Darnell; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Transact database program getting slower
>
>
> One thing to look at is how clustered are the full blocks.
> Things look
> great for access but if the blocks are clustered then the
> puts into the
> cluster can be really slow (serial read to find free record
> for new entry).
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Larry Simonsen                Phone: 801-489-2450
> Flowserve Corporation     Fax: 801-491-1750
> PO Box 2200                    http://www.Flowserve.com
> Springville, UT 84663      e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> -------------------------------------------------
> All opinions expressed herein are my own and reflect, in no
> way, those of my
> employer.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Dave Darnell
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:47 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Transact database program getting slower
>
> 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
> >
>