一些通过SAP ABAP代码审查得出的ABAP编程最佳实践

  • 时间:
  • 浏览:1
  • 来源:5分排列5_5分排列3

parallel processing (Asynchronous RFC call).

2. The more number of ZINSERT call, the better performance will be gained by using parallel

3. If the file is regarding IPG or MIDH or TPG, handle with each line separately

1. Open the file in application server

Although this solution will spend almost the same time to fetch the data from DB, it has far less memory consumption compared with using SELECT to fetch ALL data from DB at one time.

通过比较,第二种处里方案的传输速率是第三种的四倍。

Loop at all service BOM, check whether the ID in current loop does exist in validation table lt_valid_prod or lt_valid_sp. If so, delete them via DELETE TABLE XXX FROM .

In product / IObject area, the best practice is to use OPEN CURSOR / FETCH NEXT CURSOR to access big DB table.

注意第二种方案使用STARTING NEW TASK达到的并发执行效果:

1. 这有另2个IF ELSE分支里检测的条件嘴笨 逻辑上来说有的是同一类,应该合并到一有另2个IF分支里进行检查:

三种函数里执行一大堆计算,但会 把传入的product ID写到一张自定义表ZJERRY1里。

三种最好的方式和直接用SELECT相比,能显著减少内存消耗量。

调用三种函数的代码:

不可能 都要用ABAP OPEN SQL读取一张饱含海量记录的数据库表,没有推荐使用OPEN CURSOR进行分块读取。

Current logic is:

1. Check the file path whether it is IPG or MIDH or TPG related. If not, quit the report.

Improvement: use DELETE XXX WHERE product_id NOT IN . It is more efficient when lt_srv_bom_file has a huge number of records. See comparison below ( unit: second )

这是一有另2个性能现象。使用ABAP原生支持的NOT IN关键字可不可不都可否获得更好的性能。性能评测如下:

1. The more CPU & DB time spent in ZINSERT, the better performance will be gained by using

2. Read the file content line by line

2. Handle with each line directly without evaluate file path in the BIG loop.

The correct logic should be:

It is an expensive operation to open a file in application server with 400MB file size.

通过下面这段代码模拟一有另2个费时的ABAP程序:

The original dump due to out of memory issue could be eliminated by replace SELECT with OPEN CURSOR statement.

定义一有另2个ABAP函数:

processing.