View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old September 24th, 2008, 22:57
jlgottlieb jlgottlieb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 3
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 0
jlgottlieb is on a distinguished road
Using OutXmlProfiles to help OTM Performance

Hi all, I just wanted to present some of our results with OutXmlProfiles to boost performance in case any finds this helpful.

I attended the OTM SIG User Conference in Philadelphia last month and Eric Rosenbloom did a presentation on OTM Performance. This is a big concern of ours and I'm always looking for ways to boost performance. In one case study, he talked about a situation where all normal tuning efforts did not find any problem areas. After much investigation it was found that during "slow" times, a great deal of integration was happening. The fix was to implement OutXmlProfiles for the integration. Since I am getting reports of "slow" times as I implemented OutXmlProfiles on two of our ExternalSystems.

Both of these ExternalSystems use the PlannedShipment element and the profile was set to MAX_ELEMENTS. This is good when you are doing development because you want to see all the available data. What we found was that we do not actually use most of the data in the GLOG XML.

We started out developing a OutXmlProfile using the MIN elements and adding the XPaths, but I ran into some problems with this where the XPATH that I added was not in the generated XML. We found that the easiest method was to use an XML_TEMPLATE, which is basically a skeleton XML with only the elements that you want. Then define your OutXmlProfile based on the XML_TEMPLATE.

Here are our results:
# of sql calls
338 74 86
size of Xml 95 - 110K 34-40K 44-50K
avg # pushes/day 1100 (*) 3800 (*)

With a little testing, I was able to determine that the full Glog XML for a PlannedShipment element was making 338 sql calls to generate. After implementing the OutXmlProfiles, the number of sql calls was reduced to 63 for one external system and to 78 for the other. The size of the XMLs were reduced from 95 - 110K to
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jlgottlieb For This Useful Post:
acuartero (September 29th, 2008), chrisplough (September 25th, 2008)