One report run generates two entries in ExecutionLog.

  • I need to identify the fastest reports

    but I get too many sort of duplicate records in ExecutionLog that seem to be related to the same

    report run.

    So I decided to limit it by one report (Catalog.Path = '/MRM/Limit')

    I run this query:

    SELECT

    Catalog.Path,

    (ExecutionLog.TimeDataRetrieval + ExecutionLog.TimeProcessing + ExecutionLog.TimeRendering) as TotalTime,

    --ExecutionLog.TimeDataRetrieval, ExecutionLog.TimeProcessing,ExecutionLog.TimeRendering,

    ExecutionLog.TimeStart,ExecutionLog.UserName,ExecutionLog.Status,

    Roles.RoleName

    FROM

    Catalog INNER JOIN ExecutionLog ON Catalog.ItemID = ExecutionLog.ReportID

    INNER JOIN Users ON ExecutionLog.UserName = Users.UserName

    INNER JOIN PolicyUserRole ON Users.UserID = PolicyUserRole.UserID

    INNER JOIN Roles ON PolicyUserRole.RoleID = Roles.RoleID

    WHERE

    (Catalog.Path ='/MRM/Limit')

    An it gives me these results:

    PathTotalTimeTimeStartUserName

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    /MRM/Limit1442009-05-12 11:47:47.230NA\WalkerM

    /MRM/Limit270232009-05-12 11:47:13.280NA\WalkerM

    /MRM/Limit1272009-05-12 11:46:24.857NA\WalkerM

    /MRM/Limit226342009-05-12 11:45:55.390NA\WalkerM

    /MRM/Limit241182009-05-12 10:42:54.750NA\DARE

    /MRM/Limit1152009-05-12 09:40:23.647NA\Siva

    /MRM/Limit1222009-05-12 09:40:16.647NA\Siva

    /MRM/Limit146462009-05-12 09:39:53.973NA\Siva

    .....

    The same pattern for one report.

    Do you see it? Look at the StartTime.

    It always has pairs. TotalTime is "22634" and then after 29 seconds another entry for the same report

    "127".

    There is nothing wrong with "22634" record but "127"?...

    What is it? There is no way this report can run in 127 milliseconds.

    To me it looks like both records are for one execution but for some reason

    it generates two entries in ExecutionLog.

    Did anybody have similar issues?

  • I think the problem might be in your query

    I just ran it and got way too many records returned

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply