Focal Point Banner

As of December 1, 2020, Focal Point is retired and repurposed as a reference repository. We value the wealth of knowledge that's been shared here over the years. You'll continue to have access to this treasure trove of knowledge, for search purposes only.

Join the TIBCO Community
TIBCO Community is a collaborative space for users to share knowledge and support one another in making the best use of TIBCO products and services. There are several TIBCO WebFOCUS resources in the community.

  • From the Home page, select Predict: WebFOCUS to view articles, questions, and trending articles.
  • Select Products from the top navigation bar, scroll, and then select the TIBCO WebFOCUS product page to view product overview, articles, and discussions.
  • Request access to the private WebFOCUS User Group (login required) to network with fellow members.

Former myibi community members should have received an email on 8/3/22 to activate their user accounts to join the community. Check your Spam folder for the email. Please get in touch with us at for further assistance. Reference the community FAQ to learn more about the community.

Focal Point    Focal Point Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Performance Management Framework (PMF)    PMF Developer Series: Reporting Response Times (Part 1)

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
PMF Developer Series: Reporting Response Times (Part 1)
Platinum Member
One of the most critical issues that the PMF Development Team faces is insuring quick response times on reports, and the key factor in good response time is to extract data out of the core PMF "fact" table (MEASURES) as efficiently as possible Those of you who are familiar with the PMF database may already know that we have been using a WebFOCUS cluster join MEASURESDIM. MEASURESDIM incorporated the full set of joins you could possibly need to do any standard PMF report, so we could extract all required metrics values with a single TABLE FILE MEASURESDIM.

In the early releases of PMF, most of our customers had a relatively small volume of data (less than 1M rows), but in the last few years we have been seeing customers with 5M to 10M rows of data. When we did prototyping of larger databases, we observed that when doing a TABLE FILE MEASUREDIM, the database optimizers were making bad choices when selecting a single Scorecard; this was related to the fact the the database had to do extra joins. Since nearly every PMF report is based on a single Scorecard, we had to do something. The solution was to split out the fact query into two steps. The first step determines which Measures the report is using; the second step uses a new cluster join, PMF_CUBE_VW, which only contains joins from the MEASURES table to the immediately connected tables. With large databases, we observed order of magnitude improvements; and with smaller databases there was either no change or moderate improvements. These changes took effect starting with PMF release 5.2.1.

It almost goes without saying that database tuning is a highly complex and highly researched topic. If you do a web search on "database tuning" you will easily get 10s to 100s of thousands of hit depending on how you phrase your query. So this discussion is by nature rather superficial. If you would like do discuss this further, or if you have any questions, please feel free to respond to this posting.

Eric Heilner (AKA EricH)
Product Manageger

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bob Jude Ferrante,
Posts: 164 | Registered: March 26, 2003Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

Focal Point    Focal Point Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Performance Management Framework (PMF)    PMF Developer Series: Reporting Response Times (Part 1)

Copyright © 1996-2020 Information Builders