Windchill "search in structure" is too slow, takes minutes.

[Andy_Admin]

Hi and thanks for reading!

The "search in structure" is too slow: 8-9 minutes in a structure of 2k parts is not acceptable. It was way faster before we migrated from Windchill 11 to 12.

I already enabled "excludedAttributesForClassicFindInTree" for all attributes, except roughly 10 attributes. Did the "xconfmanager -p" and restarted the Windchill-Server. No effect.

The "normal" global search and the advanced search are totally fine and only take some seconds.

We're using an Oracle DB and Windchill 12.0.2.5.

1. What can I do/try/read to improve the situation?

2. Is there more information material than the documentation below? Where? (For me, it is not clear what "enableClassicFindInStructure" does.)

You are my last hope: PTC took 3 month (so far) for a "business critically impacted"-case, opened by them, so I won't contact them and our local supplier has no idea what to do. Neither did ChatGPT.

Thanks a lot.

https://support.ptc.com/help/wnc/r12.1.1.0/en/index.html#page/Windchill_Help_Center/WCSysAdminPSB/PSBPropertiesConfig.html

[avillanueva]

Are other areas slow as well? How about search in table for a folder with lots of items? I would also think advanced search should be below 1 second to return results. I would ensure that DB is tuned and indexes are created. See if DBA can watch for long running queries and report those back here. 

[Andy_Admin]

Thanks avillanueva!

Marked that on my checklist:

- indexes in DB

I have questions:

Can you specify what you mean by "tuning" the DB? Maybe the one to three topics you would look at? (Unfortunately I'm not an admin for the DB, so I need to delegate that work.)

What is DBA and how could I do this? (I will google it, but in case you got a link on your hand, I would appreciate that.)

Andy

[HelesicPetr]

Hello @Andy_Admin 

Try this article, if it helps.

CS364546 Find in Structure is slow in Product Structure Browser in Windchill 12.0.2

PetrH

[Andy_Admin · Accepted solution]

Hi Petr,

thanks! I tried that on our test server and it works perfectly. 

I saw the variable in the help, but I didn't know how to implement it.

I just found out how to put it into the system permanently:

Put it into the companycustomizing.xconf + Windchill-shell "xconfmanager -p" + restart Windchill

So, it is a workaround, but not the solution.

I will answer the others and we will see where the real reason is.

Andy

[ScottMorris]

I would push on PTC for a better solution. The CS article identifies a new search solution for WC12.0 and the property they suggest puts it back to the pre-WC12.0 search solution. This is not a fix, its a patch to put you back to a time when it used to work. I would push them for an SPR and get the SPR posted on this article so others can reference it.

[Andy_Admin]

Hi Scott,

thanks for the suggestions!

What is an SPR?

Andy

[ScottMorris]

SPR = Software Performance Report

This is PTC's terminology for a software defect or bug report

[BenLoosli]

What are your server specifications?

Processor speed?

Number of cores?

Amount of RAM?

Number of Method Servers running?

Local servers or remote?

Single server setup (Oracle and Windchill on the same) or Dual servers (Oracle on one, Windchill on the other)?

[Andy_Admin]

Hi Ben, thanks!

MS20019 Server

Xeon E5-4620 v2, 2,6Ghz (1% idling now, because one me and the 20 guys in america are working)

(8cores)

48 GB RAM (40,5 GB used)

one Method Server, one Background Method server

remote server

several replica servers around the world with different setups and versions

dual server setup

no access to DB-server, but I think it has 28 or 32 GB of memory

Andy

[BenLoosli]

That should be enough power for searching, but as others have pointed out, this should be fixed by PTC as a regression from 11.1 performance.

I would suggest a second Method Server with 8 cores. I have 3 MS and 1 BMS with a dual hex core server, hyperthreading is disabled in the bios.

[Andy_Admin]

Agree, this should be fixed by PTC.

How many active users do you have, roughly?