Yes. All I care about is whether the account had any activity (i.e. impressions) over a given date range, so an empty report means that it's not active, for my purposes. I don't care if the account is "active" in the sense of being available to run.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:09:30 PM UTC-4, Oliver wrote: > > Thanks for sharing such a great optimization tip. > > Aside from the performance issue, I am curious to know how your're > handling the account reports when there are no impressions. There is a > known bug with the Account Performance Report whereby it comes back > completely empty if there is no impression data. Are you parsing an empty > report as non-active account? > > Oliver > > > On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:13:16 PM UTC+1, j.e.frank wrote: >> >> I noticed this post that was also related to report serialization and >> jaxb: >> >> https://developers.google.com/adwords/api/community/?place=msg%2Fadwords-api%2F2h_hhyThed0%2FN94XKOfR2GoJ >> >> I made my own version of the serializer for a ReportDefinition object, >> that creates a single JaxBContext object and reuses it instead of making a >> new one each time. According to some web searching that I did, the >> JaxBContext is threadsafe so this should be fine, and in fact the >> recommended approach is to use just one JaxBContext. This change made a >> significant reduction in my CPU utilization, in addition to the permgen >> memory issues that Eli mentions in the post above. >> >> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, j.e.frank wrote: >>> >>> I'm upgrading from v201109 to v201209 in java. I have a method which >>> figures out all of our "active" accounts over a given time frame, by >>> running a simple report for each account and seeing if there are any >>> impressions. I tested it out and it works fine but my CPU is pretty much >>> pinned at 100% while that method is running. I went back to the earlier >>> version and it doesn't get much above 20%. >>> >>> At first I thought it was a difference from the "old" java library to >>> the "new", so I also tried it with v201209 in the "old" library and had the >>> same issue. I haven't done profiling yet to figure out what the exact >>> difference is, so I was wondering if anyone else has experienced a similar >>> issue. My first theory is that it has something to do with >>> serializing/deserializing, since I know that has changed significantly with >>> jaxb. >>> >> -- =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Also find us on our blog and discussion group: http://adwordsapi.blogspot.com http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdWords API Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to adwords-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adwords-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api?hl=en
