[ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations

[Gert van der Spoel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org [mailto:interchange-
> users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Grant
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:52 AM
> To: interchange-users at icdevgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [ic] Iterations slow with mv_matchlimit incrementations
> 
> >> >> I'm baffled by this.  I have no idea why increasing mv_matchlimit
> >> >> would drastically increase the amount of time required for *each*
> >> loop
> >> >> iteration.  Please let me know if you have any ideas.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any way you can post the relevant piece of code?  Without
> >> > knowing what's being iterated over, it's hard to offer
> suggestions.
> >> > In particular, are there any parts which are perl blocks of any
> >> > particular flavor (calc, calcn, perl, prefix-exec, etc)?  Are
> there
> >> > perhaps multiple nested loop constructs?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > David
> >>
> >> Here's another illustration of my problem.  I set up 15 [email] tags
> >> throughout my code so I get an email whenever certain points are
> >> reached.  With ml=10 I get maybe 20 or so emails per second.  With
> >> ml=999999 I get much less than 1 email per second.  My understanding
> >> is that the first 10 iterations should take the same amount of time
> in
> >> either scenario.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know why IC would execute a single iteration at a
> >> drastically slower rate, just because it has more total iterations
> to
> >> execute?
> >>
> >> My installation is a year or two old.  Does this sound like a
> problem
> >> an upgrade could fix?
> >
> > e-mail does not seem to be the most useful medium to do performance
> tests.
> > Servers can start holding e-mails or other external influences can
> cause
> > e-mails to arrive less frequently.
> >
> > Why not have 15 timestamps written to a logfile, so you can look at
> this
> > data and see if you can find any trends. Is it that the 15 timestamps
> are
> > increasing in interval equally?
> 
> Exactly, that seems to be the behavior.  They increase in interval
> equally.

Next step: you have 500 lines of code on which you try to increase the
ml=xxxxx
Can you reduce the amount of code to a couple of lines and maintain the same
behavior?

Eventually you might be able to reduce it to a certain level where it starts
to become possible to send it to the list ... Then on guru level it can be
traced through the Interchange core code to see if there is anything that
can be done to solve it :)

CU,

Gert