| Author |
Message
|
| ucbus1 |
 Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:11 am Post subject: Data connectors and efficiency issues |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
| This is a build time question. If I am mapping using "data connectors" form one activity to activity, does redundancy of mappings cause any effieciency loss? When I say redundancy, imean suppose I have 1-2-3 and I map data from 1-2 and 1-3 and at the same time map 1-2 and 2-3., does this cause any poor performance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ratan |
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
I suppose it does, but not noticiable. The best place to ask this question is the MQWF news group at IBM.
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
I'm not certain I understand the question.... but if you are saying you are mapping data from Actity 2 to Activity 3 and Activity 1 to Activity 3, the issue is that assuming that these activites run 1 then 2 then 3... Activity 3 will only have access to the data mapped by Activity 2, never that by Activity 1.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
John, are you sure about this. My understanding is if 1 and 2 are mapped to 3, which ever one has last updated data gets to 3. so if 2 doesnot return any data, data from 1 will be mapped. Isnt it how it works.
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Ratan:
You are exactly correct... the last update wins, that's why if ucbus is saying that Activity1 runs, then Activity 2 runs, then Activity 3 runs (I.E they all run, any mapping from 1 to 3 is going to be overlayed by mappings from 2 to 3.
Like I said, maybe I don't understand the question 
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
John,
Suppose Activity 1 returns
<1>
<1.1>
<1.2>
<1.5>
<1>
and Activity2 returns
<1>
<1.3>
<1.4>
</1>
then activity 3 gets the whole container <1>
<1>
<1.1>
<1.2>
<1.3>
<1.4>
<1.5>
</1>
Right?
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Ratan:
Aboslutely....
But the fact that the orignial post was speaking of Redundant mappings lead me to believe that there would be items set in activity 1 that were also set in activity 2.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ucbus1 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
Thanks Ratan and Jmac,
I have modified my data container in such a way that
general data: (for example like key information which is constant across all the activities) as separate and flags/status fields as separate. That way I make sure that 1-3 is mapped with general data and 2-3 is mapped with flags only. this I had to do because of the "vendor specific" upes message handler frame work which was overlaying the container elements. Still working to resolve the issue with the message hanler frame work. In the mean time I got this temporary fix.
My question was would this effect performance? "
The less the number of data connectors the more is the performance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
The performance issue is more the size of the container, than the number of data connectors.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
