473,320 Members | 1,821 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

to find execution time

cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.
thank you in advance,
vishnu
Nov 13 '05 #1
27 5869
vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.


Call clock() at the start of your program; call clock() at the end of
your program; subtract the two; divide by CLOCKS_PER_SEC. Not very
precise, probably, but it's as precise as ISO C gets.

Richard
Nov 13 '05 #2
Richard Bos wrote:

vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.


Call clock() at the start of your program; call clock() at the end of
your program; subtract the two; divide by CLOCKS_PER_SEC. Not very
precise, probably, but it's as precise as ISO C gets.


That's if "execution time" means "processor time."
If it instead means "elapsed time," the recipe is slightly
different: call time() at the start and end, and hand the
two values to difftime().

--
Er*********@sun.com
Nov 13 '05 #3
In <3f***************@news.nl.net> rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.


Call clock() at the start of your program; call clock() at the end of
your program; subtract the two; divide by CLOCKS_PER_SEC. Not very
precise, probably, but it's as precise as ISO C gets.


It's reasonably precise if the CPU time is not much shorter than 1
second and if you don't take Richard's advice ad litteram and divide
by a plain CLOCKS_PER_SEC. Convert it to float or double before
dividing by it.

Note that you get the CPU time used by the program this way. If you
need the real time instead, you have to use time() and difftime(), but
the usual resolution of this method is 1 second. For something better,
you need to use platform specific functions.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 13 '05 #4
GIR
On 3 Dec 2003 03:14:52 -0800, vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu
mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.
thank you in advance,
vishnu


I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.

What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.

If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.

For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.

If you want further details then I suggest you look for a group
specific to your platform, this is just a group about the language C
and not hardware.

Good luck
Nov 13 '05 #5
GIR wrote:

I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.

What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.

If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.


OK, but this can be a very poor way to gauge execution time. Memory and
disk access, various interrupts, dynamic RAM refresh, branch prediction
failures, pipeline flushes, and many other things can affect the
execution speed. This varies from one architecture to the next, but in
general you can only know how fast a section of code is by carefully
timing it.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

Nov 13 '05 #6
Kevin Goodsell <us*********************@neverbox.com> writes:
GIR wrote:
I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.
What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.
If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates
on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.
OK, but this can be a very poor way to gauge execution time. Memory
and disk access, various interrupts, dynamic RAM refresh, branch
prediction failures, pipeline flushes, and many other things can
affect the execution speed. This varies from one architecture to the
next, but in general you can only know how fast a section of code is
by carefully timing it.


some operating systems (linux/solaris that i am aware of) offer
nanosecond resolution monotonic timers. you can use those. but then
these measurements will have to be taken with a grain of salt. as
these might be skewed based on machine load, disk activity, usage
patterns etc. etc.

anupam

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.


--
....mathematicians do it smoothly and continuously or discretely in groups and in fields.
Nov 13 '05 #7
In <8p********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
On 3 Dec 2003 03:14:52 -0800, vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu
mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.
thank you in advance,
vishnu


I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.

What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.

If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.

For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.


This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 13 '05 #8
GIR
On 4 Dec 2003 10:52:54 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <8p********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
On 3 Dec 2003 03:14:52 -0800, vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu
mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.
thank you in advance,
vishnu


I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.

What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.

If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.

For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.


This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...

Dan


To my knowledge that is the only accurate way of finding out how many
cycles a certain piece of code needs. And Like I said, it's platform
dependent. A good programmer always knows his/her system dynamics. If
for some reason the platform would introduce other ellements it's onto
the programmer to deal with these ellements. Like missed cache hits...
turn caching off.

Before mentoined methods of using timers or calling on the RTC are
susceptable to interrupts or are not accurate. I don't know how you
want to measure the performance of a piece of code just by looking at
the RTC...
Nov 13 '05 #9
In <p3********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
To my knowledge that is the only accurate way of finding out how many
cycles a certain piece of code needs. And Like I said, it's platform
dependent. A good programmer always knows his/her system dynamics. If
for some reason the platform would introduce other ellements it's onto
the programmer to deal with these ellements. Like missed cache hits...
turn caching off.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're either a patent idiot or a troll.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 13 '05 #10
Thanks a lot every body.
I really like this group.

thanks from,
vishnu
Nov 13 '05 #11
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:
This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...


100 cpu cycles? Why so high?

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Nov 13 '05 #12
GIR <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:<8p********************************@4ax.com>. ..
On 3 Dec 2003 03:14:52 -0800, vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu
mahendra) wrote:
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.


I don't know what platform you are writing for, but most "industrial
compilers" have an option to export your C file with the ASM code
included as comments.

What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.

If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is.

For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.


This may have been a practical procedure in the early days of computers,
but for the last couple of decades it's been more or less useless. The
number of cycles required by each instruction is one minor factor in how
long the code will take to run on most modern systems.

The only realistic method for most people is to measure a large number
of iterations with the system in a controlled state.
Nov 13 '05 #13
In article <bq**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:
This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...


100 cpu cycles? Why so high?


Because the increase of memory speed did not catch up with the increase
in processor speed. How fast is memory nowadays? How many CPU cycles
does it take to get information from memory to the CPU?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Nov 13 '05 #14
GIR <no@spam.com> wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 10:52:54 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <8p********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
even includes the used memory.
This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...


To my knowledge that is the only accurate way of finding out how many
cycles a certain piece of code needs.


The OP didn't ask about cycles, but about time. Those are far from the
same thing.

Richard
Nov 13 '05 #15
vi*************@yahoo.com (vishnu mahendra) wrote in message news:<c2*************************@posting.google.c om>...
cah you please tell me how to find the execution time of a program in c.
thank you in advance,
vishnu


If this were comp.arch.embedded, I'd say that the cleanest way
is to change the state of an I/O pin as you enter and again when
you leave a section of code and measure the time on a 'scope.
However, IIRC there is (was?) a function in MS C++ to read a more
precise clock upon entering and again upon leaving, the delta
representing the elapsed time in (maybe?) milliseconds. It
took a while to find the function call but I'm sure someone
with a better memory here or in comp.arch.embedded will recall
it. Coffee breaks are hell.

HTH,
Ken Asbury
Nov 13 '05 #16
GIR
On 4 Dec 2003 15:07:34 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <p3********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
To my knowledge that is the only accurate way of finding out how many
cycles a certain piece of code needs. And Like I said, it's platform
dependent. A good programmer always knows his/her system dynamics. If
for some reason the platform would introduce other ellements it's onto
the programmer to deal with these ellements. Like missed cache hits...
turn caching off.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're either a patent idiot or a troll.

Dan


Uhu, it didn't occure to you that the language C isn't just for 8086
machines... there are architectures around which do allow a coder to
specify wether you want to enable caching. And once again like I said
it is platform dependent so if you want info on howto do it on a
certain platform then you will need to look that up in the group of
that platform.

comp.lang.c sais to me that this group is about the language C... I
think it's kinda ackward that you would automaticly presume that
everybody in here is programming for a 8086 architecture.

Nov 13 '05 #17
GIR
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:04 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:
GIR <no@spam.com> wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 10:52:54 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
>In <8p********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
>>What you do from there is get the user manual for your processor and
>>look up the used cycles per instruction. The Compiler we use (custom)
>>even includes the used memory. >This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
>A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...
To my knowledge that is the only accurate way of finding out how many
cycles a certain piece of code needs.


The OP didn't ask about cycles, but about time. Those are far from the
same thing.

Richard


At the start of this subthread I said:
If you know the XTAL of your processor (The ferquency is operates on,
probably mentioned in the user manual) you know how long 1 cycle is. For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.

Nov 13 '05 #18
GIR wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 15:07:34 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <p3********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
turn caching off.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're either a patent idiot or a troll.

Dan

Uhu, it didn't occure to you that the language C isn't just for 8086
machines... there are architectures around which do allow a coder to
specify wether you want to enable caching.


OK... but that would make the timing method you suggest *less* accurate.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

Nov 13 '05 #19
GIR
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:13:14 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
<us*********************@neverbox.com> wrote:
GIR wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 15:07:34 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <p3********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:

turn caching off.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're either a patent idiot or a troll.

Dan

Uhu, it didn't occure to you that the language C isn't just for 8086
machines... there are architectures around which do allow a coder to
specify wether you want to enable caching.


OK... but that would make the timing method you suggest *less* accurate.

-Kevin


I think there's coliding views here. You guyz look at it from a
desktop POV where the OS handles alot of the stuff. I'm looking at it
from a system POV where you have to handle alot of stuff yourself and
thus know every little tiny detail of your system.

Because there is alot of interrupting and queuing going on in the
modern day OS the suggested timing via timers or RTC cannot and will
not be accurate. If you want to know how long a certain piece of code
(function, subroutine or method) exactly needs for it to complete it's
duties to only way to really know for sure is to look at it's cycles.
Nov 13 '05 #20
GIR
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 04:25:46 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nl>
wrote:
In article <bq**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes:
Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> spoke thus:
This used to work 25 years ago, but it's useless on modern architectures.
A single cache miss may cost as much as 100 cpu cycles...


100 cpu cycles? Why so high?


How many CPU cycles
does it take to get information from memory to the CPU?


it takes 1 cycle to get data from the memory to the CPU. in 1 cycle
there are upto 5 R/W operations.

Nov 13 '05 #21
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:04:38 +0100, in comp.lang.c , GIR <no@spam.com>
wrote:
On 4 Dec 2003 15:07:34 GMT, Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:
In <p3********************************@4ax.com> GIR <no@spam.com> writes:
the programmer to deal with these ellements. Like missed cache hits...
turn caching off. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're either a patent idiot or a troll.

Uhu, it didn't occure to you that the language C isn't just for 8086
machines...


There's nothing in Dan's post which assumes C is for 8086, in fact
quite the reverse. Whether a chip is capable of caching and whether it
can be enabled/disabled would be entirely platform specific, and hence
outwith the scope of C. To include functionality to support it would
typically be making C /less/ portable.
comp.lang.c sais to me that this group is about the language C... I
think it's kinda ackward that you would automaticly presume that
everybody in here is programming for a 8086 architecture.


It is for C, and it doesn't assume any architecture.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 13 '05 #22
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:04:12 +0100, in comp.lang.c , GIR <no@spam.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:13:14 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
<us*********************@neverbox.com> wrote:
OK... but that would make the timing method you suggest *less* accurate.
I think there's coliding views here. You guyz look at it from a
desktop POV where the OS handles alot of the stuff.


No, we look at it from the C point of view, where there /is/ no
desktop and there /is/ no OS.
I'm looking at it
from a system POV where you have to handle alot of stuff yourself and
thus know every little tiny detail of your system.


Then you've left the realm of C, and you're into hardware specific
land. C doesn't deal with this.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 13 '05 #23
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:09:04 +0100, in comp.lang.c , GIR <no@spam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:04:04 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:

The OP didn't ask about cycles, but about time. Those are far from the
same thing.

For example if you processor has an XTAL of 1MHz then 1 cycle takes 1
us (microsecond). Just multiply the total amount of cycles needed by
the XTAL and you got your execution time.


Right. And when your app is task-switched out, and a million cycles
pass with it dormant?

Get with the plot there !

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 13 '05 #24
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:05:27 +0100, in comp.lang.c , GIR <no@spam.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 04:25:46 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nl>
wrote:
How many CPU cycles
does it take to get information from memory to the CPU?


it takes 1 cycle to get data from the memory to the CPU. in 1 cycle
there are upto 5 R/W operations.


On whatever specific hardware you're using. This is however totally
irrelevant to C in general, and not even remotely reliable as a
principle.

And you're the one claiming that others are locked into x86 mode?

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 13 '05 #25
GIR wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:13:14 GMT, Kevin Goodsell
<us*********************@neverbox.com> wrote:

GIR wrote:

Uhu, it didn't occure to you that the language C isn't just for 8086
machines... there are architectures around which do allow a coder to
specify wether you want to enable caching.


OK... but that would make the timing method you suggest *less* accurate.


I think there's coliding views here. You guyz look at it from a
desktop POV where the OS handles alot of the stuff. I'm looking at it
from a system POV where you have to handle alot of stuff yourself and
thus know every little tiny detail of your system.

Because there is alot of interrupting and queuing going on in the
modern day OS the suggested timing via timers or RTC cannot and will
not be accurate. If you want to know how long a certain piece of code
(function, subroutine or method) exactly needs for it to complete it's
duties to only way to really know for sure is to look at it's cycles.


I'm not thinking of the OS at all. I'm thinking of things like wasted
cycles and complicated pipelining. Both of these can (and do) occur
without the OS being involved at all, or even existing. Cycles get
wasted for any number of reasons - memory accesses, dynamic RAM refresh,
interrupts, etc. Pipelining can cause instructions to use *fewer* clock
cycles (at least, that's the observed result). So if a multiply takes 12
cycles, but it happens to come after certain other instructions, it may
appear to finish after 1 or 2 cycles. Or, if the pipeline is flushed for
some reason, it may take the full 12. The original Pentium chip (I'm not
as familiar with newer architectures) could sometimes do two
instructions in the same cycle. All this makes it very difficult to
predict how many cycles even a single instruction will take.

Your suggestion may work for some simpler architectures (like the 8051),
but it is far from being generally useful.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

Nov 13 '05 #26
GIR wrote:

it takes 1 cycle to get data from the memory to the CPU. in 1 cycle
there are upto 5 R/W operations.


I'm sorry, but that's completely false on many architectures. My CPU is
running at something like 2.53 GHz. That clock rate would make the RAM
go nuclear. Besides that, how do you define 'memory'? Cache (possibly
multiple levels), main memory, swap space, those are all types of memory
and they all take different amounts of time to access.

The bottom line is that you are either grossly over-simplifying or you
are simply unaware of several of the issues involved. The method you
suggested is only useful in a relatively small number of very simple cases.

-Kevin
--
My email address is valid, but changes periodically.
To contact me please use the address from a recent posting.

Nov 13 '05 #27
In <10*****************@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net> Kevin Goodsell <us*********************@neverbox.com> writes:
The bottom line is that you are either grossly over-simplifying or you
are simply unaware of several of the issues involved. The method you
suggested is only useful in a relatively small number of very simple cases.


Which must fullfil *all* these conditions:

1. No form of memory caching.
2. No form of virtual memory.
3. A single execution unit inside the CPU, non-pipelined.
4. If both the CPU and some other piece of hardware try to simultaneously
access the same memory bank, the CPU always wins.
5. A memory access takes a constant and well known number of wait states.

This basically rules out everything more modern than a 286, but there are
plenty of older systems that fail to qualify for one of the above
mentioned reasons or another.

Heck, not even my old ZX-Spectrum qualified, before I extended its RAM
from 16K to 48K (the first 16K of RAM was shared between the CPU and the
graphics hardware and it was the latter which won all access conflicts).

Actually, there was a hack, involving putting the Z80 in IM2 and storing
certain values in the I register, that confused the system and let the
CPU win access conflicts. The result was "snow" on the TV screen.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 13 '05 #28

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

7
by: Adam | last post by:
Hi, I am working on a project that requires me to parse 52,005,167 rows in a MySQL table. I am using a series of PHP scripts for each test I would like to run on the data. For example I have...
5
by: Johannes Lebek | last post by:
Hi there, lately, I experienced a strange thing on my DB2 V8.1 on Windows: Some queries took a very long time. A snapshot discovered the following: Number of executions = 47...
38
by: vashwath | last post by:
Might be off topic but I don't know where to post this question.Hope some body clears my doubt. The coding standard of the project which I am working on say's not to use malloc.When I asked my...
2
by: hakim | last post by:
Hi NG, I have my own apache server 2.0.54 running with php 4.3.10. I got a little logical problem here about http requests. I have written a small php script which waits for x seconds. Every...
3
by: taru | last post by:
Env: DB2 UDB 8.1 on AIX We are executing a db2 sql stored procedure which is invoked from a java client. The stored procedure contains few select, insert and update statements. Using the DB2...
6
by: monkeyboy | last post by:
Hello, I have a function that hotshot says is very slow. I can get the aggregate execution time, but is there a way to get the execution time of each line so I can find the bottleneck? Thank...
0
by: Balamurugan Ranganathan | last post by:
I want to calculate the execution time of a sql query through C#.net this is to analysis two queries to compare their execution time it is very Urgent Please help me Please help Me ...
2
by: Richard | last post by:
Hello all, I am looking into issues with time-outs on a website. These appear to happen in a random way for some users. This is one example: Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 60 seconds...
1
by: nimisha123 | last post by:
Hey experts how can display execution time for a query i.e.time lapse between start and end of executing a query am not using any DB2 tool for querry,,am direclty using command line,,so pelase...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.