Skip to Content

Proved enhaced performance bpc embedded vs bpc classic on hana

Hello experts,

Does anybody has some comparison of the performance for script logics and badis in bpc on hana classic version vs. bpc with embedded models?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

3 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Jul 17, 2017 at 04:18 PM


    just an additional remark.

    Statements about performance are not possible without a well-defined context. The only thing that might be a valid statement that ABAP implementations algorithms are often (much) slower compared to native HANA implemenations. So having BADIs or other stuff that is mapped to ABAP code may be slower compared to an alternative HANA implementation. FOX is 'compiled' to an ABAP program in non HANA DBs and to L (a special compiled language on HANA) on HANA and in most cases the HANA version is much faster than the ABAP version.



    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • In BPC Embedded you should proceed as follows:

      - use a standard planning function if this fits feature wise

      - use FOX if a standard planning function does not fit

      - use an exit function type where you can use SQL Script; it is not clear whether FOX or an own SQL Script implementation is faster; this depends on the problem and maybe on the SQL Script implementation

  • Jul 25, 2017 at 07:12 AM

    not sure if it is usable for you but i have a comparison for BPC on HANA (abap BADI) and same BPC on HANA system for HANA written codes. Both classic version.

    It is similar how bpc on hana process the disaggregation so i believe it will still give you an idea.

    For 10 million rows for the Currency Conversion package, ABAP takes 3 hour+ including writeback , and HANA written codes takes 2min 30sec including writeback.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Jul 14, 2017 at 06:28 AM

    Embedded use FOX scripts not script logic...

    Hard to compare!

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded