Bad performance with eCATT table parameters

Former Member — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:19:41 GMT

Hello,

My team has been using eCATTs for some months, but today we experienced a strange problem that I would like to share.

We are working in a eCATT to change one field in table ANLB (Assets - depreciation terms), for some thousands of records (+/-5000), with different characteristics.

So, or first idea was to use inline abap to make the selections to ANLA and ANLB, and then use a DO cicle to call the TCD commands to make the change.

We defined eCATT parameters for the table and work area:

IT_ANLA type ANLA[]

WA_ANLA type ANLA

and also similar parameters inside the ABAP block:

DATA:

LT_ANLA type standard table of ANLA,

LWA_ANLA type ANLA.

Our problem of performance is coming from the eCATT command:

IT_ANLA = LT_ANLA

This command is taking about 120 seconds to process, and for what we could see, is consuming a lot of memory. When we comment this command, the problem disappears, even with the selects inside the ABAP block.

We made a change and defined a smaller ANLA type, lets say ANLA_SMALL, with only 6 fields, but the problem remains.

Does anyone know if there are some memory parameters that should be mantained for eCATTs, to overcome this problem? Is there another option to run the TCD's, if not with eCATT parameters of type table([]) ?

Thanks in advance

Davide, Rui

Re: Bad performance with eCATT table parameters

venkatesh_sakthivel — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:50:41 GMT

Hi,

I agree to you there are certain instance while the time taken is more..even i have faced that.

But 120 seconds is lot more..

I strongly recommend you to give a trial and run in the ABAP and ENDABAP block code.

Replace the "type" by "like" Command and give a try

Define the table in the beginning by Tables : <TableName>

and define <Table parameter> type as <Tablename>

Hope any of the ways should help to reduce the time.

Regards,

Venky

topic Re: Bad performance with eCATT table parameters in Application Development and Automation Discussions

Bad performance with eCATT table parameters

Re: Bad performance with eCATT table parameters