![]() Interesting during our experience, this lead us to say that the best We did not findĪnything mentioned in the Books On Line nor have we ever seen anything It might be interesting to discover if there is any benefit, apartįrom performance, by using the BatchSize parameter. When we use 0 as BatchSize, sending the whole 750.000 rows in a single Needless to say, the best performance is obtained Writing 750.000 rows each, then we only have 75 chunks of data sentįrom each thread. ![]() When we reach 10.000 of Batch Size, then the difference in time among Very heavy way, leading to very poor time and a heavy log file usage. Any value below 10.000 decreases performance in a The 500 batch size graph upper limit is 25%, which is different from Stays well under 20% of usage for the whole process (please note that Using a very small value for the batch size the network bandwidth Performance get worse and worse as we set it to lower values. Whilst writing my question, I discovered another excellent resource here, which pointed to BatchSize as a potential culprit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |