Generally Question
in [ASP]
|
From: Bob Barrows [MVP] on 13 Apr 2008 16:02 Bam wrote: > "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message > news:ekuIf2XnIHA.4536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Bam wrote: >>> Hey gang. >>> >>> Question here: >>> >>> If someone registering for the site, enters their GUID. Now a check >>> is made on that GUID across a DB Table to see if the GUID is >>> present. There are approx 57,000 GUIDS in said table. It is msSQL >>> DB on windows server 2000 server, how long would that check take? >>> >>> I know there are several variables that come into play here, but I >>> am looking for a ball park figure on how long it would and should >>> take. >> >> Here is a script to allow you to test this on your own server: >> <snip> > I loaded this into a query, then made an asp page to check for one of > the guid's. I am getting an average of 3.5 seconds for this query. > > if you would, try this: > > first time is time the query started, second time is time it > finished. then it shows the difference. > I am trying to see if where I am located, in respect to the server, > makes that much of a difference. > http://tournaments.acitourneys.info/TIME_TEST1.ASP Why would that make a difference? I assume you are timing the query execution in your server-side code. The location of the client is totally irrelevant. I strongly suspect that the extra 3+ seconds is due to the time it takes to send the query to the server and the the time taken to receive the results. When I tested that script on my machine (using SSMS) I got results instantaneously - zero time. Were your results similar when you tested it without asp involved? -- Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the "NO SPAM"
From: Bam on 13 Apr 2008 21:18 "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message news:et6eXFanIHA.2396(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Bam wrote: >> "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message >> news:ekuIf2XnIHA.4536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Bam wrote: >>>> Hey gang. >>>> >>>> Question here: >>>> >>>> If someone registering for the site, enters their GUID. Now a check >>>> is made on that GUID across a DB Table to see if the GUID is >>>> present. There are approx 57,000 GUIDS in said table. It is msSQL >>>> DB on windows server 2000 server, how long would that check take? >>>> >>>> I know there are several variables that come into play here, but I >>>> am looking for a ball park figure on how long it would and should >>>> take. >>> >>> Here is a script to allow you to test this on your own server: >>> > <snip> >> I loaded this into a query, then made an asp page to check for one of >> the guid's. I am getting an average of 3.5 seconds for this query. >> >> if you would, try this: >> >> first time is time the query started, second time is time it >> finished. then it shows the difference. >> I am trying to see if where I am located, in respect to the server, >> makes that much of a difference. >> http://tournaments.acitourneys.info/TIME_TEST1.ASP > > Why would that make a difference? I assume you are timing the query > execution in your server-side code. The location of the client is totally > irrelevant. > > I strongly suspect that the extra 3+ seconds is due to the time it takes > to send the query to the server and the the time taken to receive the > results. When I tested that script on my machine (using SSMS) I got > results instantaneously - zero time. Were your results similar when you > tested it without asp involved? > > yes, when directly on the server, it was real fast. I am doing this as part of a registration, so I needed to know the time of the delay for an actual user upon registering. You have helped me find the answer, and I thank you for that. Just out of couriosity, when you ran the script you just gave me, how long did it take to create the table, and post the data to the DB from the query??
From: Bob Barrows [MVP] on 14 Apr 2008 06:51 Bam wrote: > "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message >>> if you would, try this: >>> >>> first time is time the query started, second time is time it >>> finished. then it shows the difference. >>> I am trying to see if where I am located, in respect to the server, >>> makes that much of a difference. >>> http://tournaments.acitourneys.info/TIME_TEST1.ASP >> >> Why would that make a difference? I assume you are timing the query >> execution in your server-side code. The location of the client is >> totally irrelevant. >> >> I strongly suspect that the extra 3+ seconds is due to the time it >> takes to send the query to the server and the the time taken to >> receive the results. When I tested that script on my machine (using >> SSMS) I got results instantaneously - zero time. Were your results >> similar when you tested it without asp involved? >> >> > yes, when directly on the server, it was real fast. I am doing this > as part of a registration, so I needed to know the time of the delay > for an actual user upon registering. > > You have helped me find the answer, and I thank you for that. > > Just out of couriosity, when you ran the script you just gave me, how > long did it take to create the table, and post the data to the DB > from the query?? About a minute, maybe a few seconds more. Err, that's not the part of the query you should be running from ASP ... but if you are running it and getting the results after inserting 57K records in 3.5 sec. you whould be extremely happy with your server's performance. -- Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the "NO SPAM"
From: Bam on 14 Apr 2008 21:37 "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message news:%23WePI2hnIHA.5692(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Bam wrote: >> "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message >>>> if you would, try this: >>>> >>>> first time is time the query started, second time is time it >>>> finished. then it shows the difference. >>>> I am trying to see if where I am located, in respect to the server, >>>> makes that much of a difference. >>>> http://tournaments.acitourneys.info/TIME_TEST1.ASP >>> >>> Why would that make a difference? I assume you are timing the query >>> execution in your server-side code. The location of the client is >>> totally irrelevant. >>> >>> I strongly suspect that the extra 3+ seconds is due to the time it >>> takes to send the query to the server and the the time taken to >>> receive the results. When I tested that script on my machine (using >>> SSMS) I got results instantaneously - zero time. Were your results >>> similar when you tested it without asp involved? >>> >>> >> yes, when directly on the server, it was real fast. I am doing this >> as part of a registration, so I needed to know the time of the delay >> for an actual user upon registering. >> >> You have helped me find the answer, and I thank you for that. >> >> Just out of couriosity, when you ran the script you just gave me, how >> long did it take to create the table, and post the data to the DB >> from the query?? > > About a minute, maybe a few seconds more. > > Err, that's not the part of the query you should be running from ASP ... > but if you are running it and getting the results after inserting 57K > records in 3.5 sec. you whould be extremely happy with your server's > performance. > > -- > Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET > Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I > don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the > "NO SPAM" No, the query was done in the DB itself. it took 28 seconds to populate the fields when I ran it. the 3.5 seconds is based on the asp script finding a specific GUID from a webpage.
From: Jeff Dillon on 25 Apr 2008 19:56 The entire process should take milliseconds. That is, take an ASP page without any db interaction that does a submit as a baseline. Then add the db query. A few extra milliseconds Jeff "Bam" <bam(a)gig-gamers.com> wrote in message news:480405af$0$7066$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > > "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message > news:%23WePI2hnIHA.5692(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Bam wrote: >>> "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <reb01501(a)NOyahoo.SPAMcom> wrote in message >>>>> if you would, try this: >>>>> >>>>> first time is time the query started, second time is time it >>>>> finished. then it shows the difference. >>>>> I am trying to see if where I am located, in respect to the server, >>>>> makes that much of a difference. >>>>> http://tournaments.acitourneys.info/TIME_TEST1.ASP >>>> >>>> Why would that make a difference? I assume you are timing the query >>>> execution in your server-side code. The location of the client is >>>> totally irrelevant. >>>> >>>> I strongly suspect that the extra 3+ seconds is due to the time it >>>> takes to send the query to the server and the the time taken to >>>> receive the results. When I tested that script on my machine (using >>>> SSMS) I got results instantaneously - zero time. Were your results >>>> similar when you tested it without asp involved? >>>> >>>> >>> yes, when directly on the server, it was real fast. I am doing this >>> as part of a registration, so I needed to know the time of the delay >>> for an actual user upon registering. >>> >>> You have helped me find the answer, and I thank you for that. >>> >>> Just out of couriosity, when you ran the script you just gave me, how >>> long did it take to create the table, and post the data to the DB >>> from the query?? >> >> About a minute, maybe a few seconds more. >> >> Err, that's not the part of the query you should be running from ASP ... >> but if you are running it and getting the results after inserting 57K >> records in 3.5 sec. you whould be extremely happy with your server's >> performance. >> >> -- >> Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET >> Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I >> don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the >> "NO SPAM" > No, the query was done in the DB itself. it took 28 seconds to populate > the fields when I ran it. the 3.5 seconds is based on the asp script > finding a specific GUID from a webpage. >
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: managing multiple virtual folders of cloned websites Next: ASP Learning |