topic Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect in Alfresco Archive https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82280#M55119 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Hi all,</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>I've found a major issue with the Inclusive Gateway.&nbsp; This is a very different issue (and IMO even more pressing/critical) than ACT-1204, ACT-1026, and ACT-1073 (the currently reported items for Inclusive Gateway), in that it would seem to negate the benefits of using the Inclusive Gateway entirely. </SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>First, to set up the scenario:</SPAN><BR /><UL><LI>We have a set of fairly complex flows, with sub-processes that can sometimes be complex as well.&nbsp; We use inclusive gateways heavily to determine conditional behavior in these flows.</LI><BR /><LI>It is assumed the reader knows that when an Inclusive Gateway is put into a flow, and it has multiple forks it can take, each fork causes a new activity instruction item to be logged into the Activiti History for that flow.</LI></UL><SPAN>To summarize the primary issue:</SPAN><BR /><UL><LI>After the first Inclusive Gateway path taken, every subsequent task created for that path doesn't have an <EM>end_time_</EM> set, and therefore never gets a <EM>duration_</EM> set.&nbsp; Perhaps it never officially ends?</LI><BR /><LI>The <SPAN style="color:#FF0000;">next</SPAN> task (after each of those Inclusive Gateway tasks), is delayed by a minimum of 1 second (sometimes up to 3.5 second task).&nbsp; See chart below.</LI></UL><SPAN>First, to see this for yourself on your own flows, add an Inclusive Gateway with several tasks as forks, join using an Inclusive Gateway, then run this handy query: </SPAN><BR /><BR /><PRE class="language-none line-numbers"><CODE><BR />SELECT r.slevel "Lev",<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; act_name_ || ' [' || act_id_ || '}' act_name_id,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; decode(r.slevel, 1, 0, a.duration_) duration,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; decode(r.slevel, 1, a.duration_, 0) "MainTime",<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a.start_time_,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a.end_time_,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; substr(p.proc_def_id_, 1, instr(p.proc_def_id_, ':') - 1) process,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a.proc_inst_id_<BR />FROM&nbsp;&nbsp; act_hi_actinst a,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (SELECT LEVEL slevel, t.proc_inst_id_, duration_<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FROM&nbsp;&nbsp; act_hi_procinst t<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; START&nbsp; WITH super_process_instance_id_ IS NULL<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AND&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; proc_inst_id_ = '1141690'<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CONNECT BY PRIOR proc_inst_id_ = super_process_instance_id_) r,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; act_hi_procinst p<BR />WHERE&nbsp; a.proc_inst_id_ = r.proc_inst_id_<BR />AND&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; p.proc_inst_id_ = a.proc_inst_id_<BR /><SPAN class="line-numbers-rows"><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN></SPAN></CODE></PRE><BR /><SPAN>The query should give you a nice output, sequencing your history and showing you every task executed (in order) for a process and all of its sub-processes.&nbsp; For one of our flows, we have the following statistics:</SPAN><BR /><UL><LI>There are 161 process instructions shown in the history.&nbsp; Of the 162, 23 are related to Inclusive Gateways.&nbsp; We only have 5 total Inclusive Gateways in the flow.</LI><BR /><LI>The whole flow takes <STRONG>53 seconds</STRONG> to execute.&nbsp; Of the 53 seconds, <STRONG style="color: #FF0000;">36 seconds (68%)</STRONG> are consumed between the start_time_ of Inclusive Gateways, and the start_time_ of the next process instruction (this is the only way duration can be determined, because end_time_ and duration_ aren't set for the Inclusive Gateway).</LI></UL><SPAN>I have a specific table which shows all 161 generated from the above query, but I think a forum post probably isn't the way to view it.&nbsp; Instead, I'll put a small sub-segment, from the first (shrunk down to be easier to see):</SPAN><BR /><BR /><PRE class="language-none line-numbers"><CODE><BR />#&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; NAME&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; DURATION START_TIME&nbsp; END_TIME&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; START_TO_START_DURATION&nbsp; DIFFERENCE<BR />123&nbsp; Inclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1317&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.33168000&nbsp; 1.34485000&nbsp; 1317&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR />124&nbsp; Exclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.34485000&nbsp; 1.34486000&nbsp; 1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR />125&nbsp; Verify Something&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 95&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.34486000&nbsp; 1.34581000&nbsp; 95&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR />126&nbsp; Exclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.34581000&nbsp; 1.34581000&nbsp; 0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR />127&nbsp; Inclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.34581000&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3195&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3195<BR />128&nbsp; Verify Something Else 70&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.37776000&nbsp; 1.37846000&nbsp; 70&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0<BR />129&nbsp; Inclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.37846000&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2307&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2307<BR />130&nbsp; Inclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.40153000&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1669&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1669<BR />131&nbsp; Update Something&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 27&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.41822000&nbsp; 1.41849000&nbsp; 47&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 20<BR />132&nbsp; Inclusive Gateway&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.41869000&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1417&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1417<BR /><SPAN class="line-numbers-rows"><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN><SPAN>‍</SPAN></SPAN></CODE></PRE><BR /><SPAN>Note on the columns:</SPAN><BR /><UL><LI># - The activity instruction number, out of 161.</LI><BR /><LI>NAME - Taken from the act_name_id in the query above</LI><BR /><LI>DURATION - Taken from the duration_ in the query above</LI><BR /><LI>START_TIME - A simplified version of the start_time_ from the query above (in minutes)</LI><BR /><LI>END_TIME - A simplified version of the end_time_ from the query above (in minutes)</LI><BR /><LI>START_TO_START_DURATION - The "actual" duration between when the current activity instruction and the next activity instruction is executed</LI><BR /><LI>DIFFERENCE - The difference between Activiti's duration_, and the "actual" START_TO_START_DURATION.</LI></UL><SPAN>You can see in the above, that the Exclusive Gateway executes in 1 millisecond.&nbsp; I would have thought the inclusive gateway would have been the same… but unfortunately as you can see the first execution takes 1.3 seconds.&nbsp; All subsequent Inclusive Gateway calls do not have a duration, or an end_time, and the "next" activity instruction starts with a significant performance delay.&nbsp; From 123 to 132 above, it took about 10 seconds to execute.&nbsp; Only 203 milliseconds of that 10 seconds was spent executing actual business logic, the remainder was spent in delays caused by Inclusive Gateway.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>I can certainly enter this as a JIRA issue as well, but wanted to put into the forum to see if there are any immediate thoughts from the community or Activiti development team.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks in advance for your help!</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Tom</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Wed, 23 May 2012 18:25:19 GMT tidetom 2012-05-23T18:25:19Z Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82280#M55119 Hi all,I've found a major issue with the Inclusive Gateway.&nbsp; This is a very different issue (and IMO even more pressing/critical) than ACT-1204, ACT-1026, and ACT-1073 (the currently reported items for Inclusive Gateway), in that it would seem to negate the benefits of using the Inclusive Gateway en Wed, 23 May 2012 18:25:19 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82280#M55119 tidetom 2012-05-23T18:25:19Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82281#M55120 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Our team wanted to eliminate if there’s any side effect of things we do, like pause to get the output variables et al, so we have created simple flows with nothing but script tasks. Basically we have 4 flows, each with 5 ScriptTasks controlled by a condition.&nbsp; The flows are:</SPAN><BR /><UL><LI>1. 5 tasks controlled by an inclusive gateway</LI><BR /><LI>2. 5 tasks controlled by an exclusive gateway</LI><BR /><LI>3. 5 tasks controlled by a parallel gateway</LI><BR /><LI>4. 5 tasks controlled by a parallel gateway, followed by an exclusive gateway (emulating Inclusive Gateway functionality)</LI></UL><SPAN>As expected for exclusive gateway the flow only passed thru one task, for parallel all 5 paths are executed and I set my condition to be true for 3 paths for inclusive gateway and parallelAndExclusive (our old implementation of inclusive gateway) runs.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Results prove: inclusive gateway is buggy.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><CODE><BR />PROC_DEF_ID_&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SUM(DURATION_) REAL_ELAPSED_TIME MIN(START_TIME_)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MAX(END_TIME_)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; TASKCNT<BR />svc_f_test_igw:1:736265&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3253&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5.792&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.28.790000 PM&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.34.582000 PM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3<BR />svc_f_test_eXgw:1:736261&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 80&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0.08&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.24.739000 PM&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.24.819000 PM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1<BR />svc_f_test_pgw:1:736273&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 162&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0.336&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.36.272000 PM&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.36.608000 PM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5<BR />svc_f_test_pgwPluseXgw:1:736269 115&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0.177&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.40.701000 PM&nbsp; 23-MAY-12 12.04.40.878000 PM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3<BR /></CODE><BR /><SPAN>I can provide the ZIP file upon request with the tested BPMN flows, and an output captured using the following query:</SPAN><BR /><BR /><CODE><BR />SELECT proc_def_id_,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SUM(duration_),<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; extract (second FROM (MAX(end_time_) - MIN(start_time_))) real_elapsed_time,<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MIN(start_time_),<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MAX(end_time_),<BR />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SUM(decode(act_type_, 'scriptTask', 1, 0)) - 2 taskcnt<BR />FROM&nbsp;&nbsp; act_hi_actinst<BR />GROUP&nbsp; BY proc_def_id_<BR /></CODE><BR /><SPAN>All help is very much appreciated.&nbsp; </SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Activiti Developers / QA - please let me know if you'd like me to submit a JIRA issue for this item.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks in advance,</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Tom</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Wed, 23 May 2012 21:05:32 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82281#M55120 tidetom 2012-05-23T21:05:32Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82282#M55121 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Hi Tom,</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks for the detailed description.</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Could you create a JIRA and attach a ZIP with a unit test project so that I can run it and try to reproduce it, before I can seek for a solution?</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks,</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Thu, 24 May 2012 08:36:06 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82282#M55121 trademak 2012-05-24T08:36:06Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82283#M55122 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Hi Tijs,</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Good to hear from you, and thank you for the quick reply.&nbsp; I have added JIRA issue ACT-1231: </SPAN><A href="http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-1231" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-1231</A><SPAN>.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this item along.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks again,</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Tom</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Fri, 25 May 2012 22:29:53 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82283#M55122 tidetom 2012-05-25T22:29:53Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82284#M55123 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Hi Tijs,</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>I'm curious if you think this issue might be something that would be fixed in the near term, or longer term?&nbsp; I don't mean to pressure you, but just ask because given its effect on performance, our team is trying to decide whether to change all of our inclusive gateways back to the equivalent parallel + exclusive gateway combination or not.&nbsp; Naturally if this is something that will be investigated and potentially fixed in 5.10, then we'd prefer not to go through that effort.&nbsp; If later than that, then we'd probably go ahead with changing our flows so that inclusive gateways are no longer used.</SPAN><BR /><BR /><SPAN>Thanks in advance,</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Tom</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:18:47 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82284#M55123 tidetom 2012-06-04T17:18:47Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82285#M55124 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>Should we avoid using Inclusive Gateways until this is addressed? The workaround (parallel + exclusive gateways) seems to make the flows quite crowded and not very clear to the business people.</SPAN><BR /><SPAN>Regards</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:06:20 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82285#M55124 cirerenat 2012-06-07T00:06:20Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82286#M55125 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>I've added a comment on [</SPAN><A href="http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-1231" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-1231</A><SPAN>]. I think it's relevant… </SPAN></BODY></HTML> Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:00:08 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82286#M55125 silvioneto 2013-10-10T18:00:08Z Re: Inclusive Gateway: Major Performance Issue and Defect https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82287#M55126 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><SPAN>I don't believe the inclusive gateway needs history enabled. And of course your index remarks is correct.</SPAN></BODY></HTML> Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:20:17 GMT https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/inclusive-gateway-major-performance-issue-and-defect/m-p/82287#M55126 jbarrez 2013-10-21T11:20:17Z