http://forums.visokio.com/discussions/tagged/performance/feed.rss Mon, 30 Oct 17 15:00:53 -0400 Tagged with performance - Visokio Forums en-CA http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/3099/performance-finding-the-bottleneck-in-hosted-web-displays Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:11:30 -0500 CRead 3099@/discussions
This could obviously be Omniscope, the server, the internal network, the connection to my laptop, or my browser's rendering speed in theory, but I'm not having much luck in tying down what's causing it to run slowly.

Ideally, I'd like the file to load and run quickly over a wet string - the sort of thing you encounter with hotel / event / guest wifi. I've made it tiny already, and the libraries required on load are very small, so I'm not sure where to look next for optimisations.]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/3011/performance-datamanager-aggregation-block-operation-2.9-plus Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:34:17 -0400 mraburgess 3011@/discussions
It has been running for 2 days now yet is only using 6GB of my 64GB RAM (windows 10 pro, Xeon 8 core processor, Omniscope version 2.9 build 1765 (rc) [plus] x64)

Is there anything i can do to make aggregate use the available RAM more intelligently - i have other files use far more of the RAM, but always have this issue with aggregation.

thanks]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2954/idea-batch-publishing-optimising-for-high-publishing-volumess Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:39:29 -0400 Alexander 2954@/discussions
We publish a lot of PDF files, but as the number of PDF files we have to generate is growing we are investigating the best way to publish 100+ PDF files.

When using a batch output to generate 100 PDF files, Omniscope opens the template file 100 times, that also means the data is loaded 100 times and 100 times a PDF is generated.

As the opening of the template file and loading of the data takes almost a minute per file, we would like to speed up the proces. If we could keep the template file open (with the data loaded) then omniscope could generate the same 100 pdf files is less time.

Is this yet possible or is there a good workaround?

Please advice!

Thanks!

Alexander
]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2908/performance-tab-taking-too-long-to-loaddisplays Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:03:10 -0400 Alexander 2908@/discussions
For one of our clients we developed a dashboard. The dashboard has a limited dataload, yet the performance is less then we expected. Tabs are taking several minutes to load, and filterings need more time to load as well.

I would like to know what the cause is of this lack of performance. Hope you can help me investigating this issue.

Thanks!]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2784/performance-limiting-max-ram-usage-per-user-accountinstances Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:39:06 -0500 stavro 2784@/discussions
Is there any way to limit the RAM usage of an Omniscope report? For example, I want to set that every Omniscope report will use max 7 GB RAM. The number of opened files doesn't matter.]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2767/performance-64-gb-ram-server-does-not-release-memory-to-oss Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:17:06 -0500 Alexander 2767@/discussions
We have a server with 64GB RAM running Omniscope server 2.9.
During one of the tasks, memory peaks at 98%. After this task we run a diagnostics task, but memory is not released.

The performance of the Server and other Omniscope instances is slow, as the RAM keep showing up to 90%.

Any advice, what we could do? Thanks]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2410/performance-improvements-in-browser-versions-2.9- Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:33:14 -0500 steve 2410@/discussions http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2381/performance-datamanager-de-tokenize-block-is-slows Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:46:54 -0400 cmollo 2381@/discussions
I am using Ominscope 2.7 Build 459 x64. My computer has a quad-core i5 2.6 GHz processor with 4 GB of RAM. Nothing else of any significance was running on the computer at the time.

Also, the progress spinner in the De-Tokenize block immediately displays 38% and stays at 38% the whole time. It would at least be nice to get an accurate indication of percent done.

Is there any thing I can do to speed-up the de-tokenize process?

Thanks,
Chris]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2384/performance-datamanager-flow-being-slowunresponsives-2.8 Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:31:29 -0400 CRead 2384@/discussions
I'm not talking about the actual calculation of fields, or how long a file takes to refresh - but simple operations such as adding a field, expanding a block, bringing up the right click menu, selecting blocks.

It's not specific to one file, or one block type. It doesn't require a lot of blocks, although as block count goes up, responsiveness goes through the floor to an almost comic degree.

I'm not anywhere near RAM limits in most cases, the CPU is often nigh idle, and there's no disk thrashing.]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2305/performance-migrating-from-2.7-to-2.8-found-major-issues Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:30:18 -0400 Alexander 2305@/discussions
As we are upgrading to 2.8 we are currently testing running all our processes on version 2.8.
One particular DataManager block operation is really slow in 2.8, whereas in version 2.7 there was no problem.

I isolated the problem in the script. I would like to send the file to you. Please let me know who to contact.

I am joining 2 .iok files on 1 field. See printscreen. ]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1290/performance-managing-disk-cache-size-locations Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:54:25 -0500 mburgess 1290@/discussions
i have had the message that action cannot be completed because not enough disk space from Scheduler

Will this be because 5GB is not enough or 55GB is not enough (memory in use by javaw.exe was just over 50GB just before i got the message).

My question is essentially can we increase the D drive or add more hard drive space internally for visokio to use or does it need to be on the C drive?

Thanks, Matt]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2127/performance-filtering-skipcancel-text-filter-searchess Thu, 09 May 2013 10:59:21 -0400 rborobia 2127@/discussions
It would be need that on text search fields (in reports, fields such as "Search all", i've attached a screenshot) to allow disable the auto-search, and only execute the search when the user click on "enter". May also be necessary to allow cancel a search in progress, which in big subsets of data may take a long time.

Thanks for your attention]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2047/performance-2.8-alpha-running-out-of-memorys Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:04:10 -0400 Alexander 2047@/discussions
My first idea was that this had to do with maximum settings in "instal.properties" or "wrapper.config". After enabling and adjusting the maximum memory values in these 2 files, the performance of 2.8 did not increase.

Please advise us on what to do? Thanks in advance!

Regards, Alexander]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/2031/idea-performance-switching-between-ssd-disk-and-memorys Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:57:32 -0500 martingurner 2031@/discussions
We have issues where a 22mb file can take up to 30 minutes loading on 64xWin7 with 16gigs of RAM. During this time, the RAM will increase to all available RAM and stay until the file is closed.]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1971/performance-java-using-massive-memorys Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:16:28 -0500 Kirsten_Tisdale 1971@/discussions http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1940/performance-datamanager-long-multi-block-flows-slows Sun, 09 Dec 2012 03:45:04 -0500 Mees 1940@/discussions
It uses up to 10GB RAM to open on a 20GB RAM 64bit server?

Question: does the number of DM blocks affect the iok files performance? Even when there is hardly any data in?

Thanks, A]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1830/performance-faster-aggregation-2.8- Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:31:53 -0400 steve 1830@/discussions
If you are using multi-field aggregations in your views or your data models, these aggregations will be performed significantly faster. ]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1696/formulae-collapse-values-vs-formula-equivalents Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:46:24 -0400 Alexander 1696@/discussions
In various DataManager workflows, I use the Collapse Values operation.

Yet I am struggling with the performance of this operation. What can I do to make it faster? Is it an option to use the formula equivalent ([Field A]&"seperator"&[Field B]) or will this only be slowing down even more?

Thanks! ]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1220/performance-batch-append-operations-with-many-filess Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:33 -0500 adam_varney 1220@/discussions
Thanks]]> http://forums.visokio.com/discussion/1088/menus-formula-and-aggregationgrouping-interaction-2.7- Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:12:14 -0500 steve 1088@/discussions
These ideas would not affect pre-configured IOK files; they would only change default settings, and hide inactive unusual choices.

1. In the function picker, only show functions which have the same resulting data type (in the same "logical value domain") as the field they are applied to.
   
   Visible choices (depending on field data type):
   
   • Sum
   • Mean
   • Median
   • Mode
   • Minimum
   • Maximum
   • Singleton value
   • First value
   • Last value
   • (Formula result)
   
   
   Power-user hidden choices:
   
   • Record count
   • Empty count
   • Non-empty count
   • Unique value count
   • Unique values list
   • Range
   • Standard deviation
   
   
   You would still be able to get at the power-user hidden choices easily but would not see these by default.
   
   This is necessary for (3), to avoid aggregation/grouping from changing the data structure and preventing formulas from working. Formulas are defined to operate over underlying raw data, and if your aggregation changes a text field into a numeric through the use of "Empty count", the formula will most likely fail.
   
   This change would occur in grouping and aggregation, but perhaps also elsewhere for consistency and to remove choices which are confusing - e.g. a value labelled "Sales volume" but showing "Range" is incorrect.
   
   
2. In the Table view, we provide a "Formula result" option for each field alongside sum/mean/etc., just like with aggregation, instead of the "calculate formulas over grouped results" precedence setting.
   
   
3. In aggregation and grouping, we make "(Formula result)" the default for any formula field. This would include the Table view grouping, in-view aggregation, and the Aggregation operation in the Data menu and in DataManager.
   
   Note: While the bar view aggregates automatically, we couldn't allow choosing "Formula result", since Omniscope couldn't tell whether to sum/mean/whatever in any fields referenced by formulas. Instead, you would use the new "Formula" measure in 2.7, which allows you to write your own field-independent formula where you are required to use SUBSET_SUM/MEAN as appropriate.
   
   

This would mean that, if you have formulas configured in the underlying data, and you are rolling up a view to show the total sales per region, your formulas would re-execute by default.

However, due to the power and complexity of formulas, we would like to get feedback from our power users as to whether this would be a net-positive change. Would it reduce the incidence of incorrect configuration, for common models? ]]>