cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

URGENT: Selecting only 25 records at a time from a table

Amey-Mogare
Contributor
0 Kudos

URGENT !!!!

Hi,

Im having a RFC which selects records from a table (say table_A) and depending on these selected records, further processing is done within that RFC.

Now my problem is, this table_A contains around 200 matching records. Due to this entire logical processing consumes lot of time. Hence my RFC is taking huge time to produce result. (apprx 10 mins).

Can i select these matching records in batch of 25 and display result for these 25 records??

I'll give this batch size as input to RFC?

Do anybody have any idea about how to tackle this situation and reduce response time?

If u hav any better solution than this then pls pls let me know ASAP..

Regards,

Amey

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Amey Mogare ,

try to change the logic of the rfc. or if the process is taking time due to the number of records, try giving some range in the importing parameters of the rfc, like date or any thing.

ONce u have this range option in importing parameters.. you can balance the call in you coding rt?

Regards

Sarath

Amey-Mogare
Contributor
0 Kudos

Ya, process is taking time due to huge no. of records..

Transaction id is the primary key of the table.

Now wat i want to do is for 1st call to RFC, it shud select first 25 records and return result.

When i call RFC next time, it shud return me next 25 records.

How do i achieve it?

Regards,

Amey

Former Member
0 Kudos

Amey Mogare ,

Do One thing , create a new importing parameter in your RFC , say current_trans_id. NOw on the first call pass the initial value for current_trans_id.

then inside the logic .. change the select to

select upto 25 rows where trnascation id > current_trans_id.

next time when u call teh rfc.. send the last selected id as a value for current_trans_id.

i think you can some how use this logic

Regards

Sarath

Amey-Mogare
Contributor
0 Kudos

hmmm,

u'v got the point.. I'll try to use this logic in my RFC...

I think this should solve the problem..

lets give it a try..

Thanks a lot for ur quick help..

regards,

Amey

Answers (0)