Performance of OO vs BOR as used in WF

[Mike Gambier]

Alon,
 
We have no metrics yet but my gut feel overall is that the 'new' Workflow engine itself, which as you know is all based on ABAP Class objects, is likely to be slower and more memory-hungry then the 'old' 4.6c version, not faster.
 
The number of instances involved to invoke a simple RFC FM call (which is what still happens when executing a Task in the end) is staggering when you debug through it all.
 
Also, eventhough we do not use XI, the new Workflow code invariably tries to invoke BPE stuff (the Workflow part of XI) pretty much everywhere. Pity we can't set a flag somewhere in a config table and avoid this :(
 
We don't plan to use the OO container to start with (for lots of reasons) but I do intend to tweak the WF Persistence profiles of a few of our definitions to see whether there's any improvement or impact. So, if I find anything out I'll be sure and post it here.
 
By the way, I still have an OSS note outstanding about the Logical System name (SWW_CONTOB-LOGSYS) not being updated in the 'old' BOR Container table. We're pretty concerned about that as some of our instances are client-sensistive and complain if this field is blank.Regards,
 
Mike GT


From: araskin at 3i-consulting.comTo: sap-wug at mit.eduDate: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:08:30 -0400Subject: Performance of OO vs BOR as used in WF



I am curious if anyone has run any tests to see whether performance is different when using OO container elements (class instances) as opposed to BOR (object type instances). My gut feel is that OO would be faster due to the reduced overhead of not using those BOR macros but I am curious if anyone has actually done the comparison.
 


Alon
_________________________________________________________________
Share what Santa brought you
https://www.mycooluncool.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20080320/9ee294b3/attachment.htm