Update: Select on table RESB was changed on 27.05.2015 to avoid a memory short dump

One of the most frequent issues described by customers is the performance of the MRP execution.

With some simple changes on the MRP parameters and customizing we can improve drastically the MRP performance.

In order to automate the analyzis of such parameters and customizing activities I wrote a small ABAP report to carry out these checks.

The following checks are carried out by this report:

– Size of table RESB

– Bom buffering is active on customizing

– Aggregation of MRP lists is active on customizing

– Planning modes 2 or 3 were used

– Processing key NEUPL is used in combination with planning mode 2

– Scheduling horizon

– Parallel processing

– Planning file entries were converted to MRP area level

If you are interested to run this report on your system, you can find the source code on the WIKI below:

MRP Performance Analyzer – ERP Manufacturing (PP) – SCN Wiki

Below there are screenshots of this report and the results of the check.

1 – Selection screen:

MRP performance check 1.png

2 – Results screen:

MRP performance check 2.png

As you can observe from this screenshot, the report shows which settings can cause performance issue, describes the problem, explains how to solve it and points to a note where you can find more information.

This is still a beta version of the report, however, this report does not delete or change anything on your system, therefore, you can safely implement it on your system.

Your feedback about this report is highly appreciated. If you can remember of any additional checks that can be carried out to improve the MRP performance, feel free to leave your suggestion on the blog comments.

To report this post you need to login first.

10 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

    1. Caetano Almeida Post author

      Hi Anupam

      Did you implement the report on you system? Did it find any parameter that could be changed to improve the MRP performance?

      Your feedback about is highly appreciated.

      BR
      Caetano

      (0) 
      1. Anupam Sharma

        Hi Caetano,

        I have implemented the report in my DEV and found the same consistencies reported of Mariano Cabalen for BOM buffering and Planning file inconsistencies.

        Thanks for sharing it.simplified code with possible solutions with SAP notes.

        Regards,

        Anupam Sharma

        (0) 
        1. Caetano Almeida Post author

          Hi Anupam

          Thanks for the feedback. If you are planning to change this setting, please compare the results before and after the MRP execution using report RMMDMONI.

          BR
          Caetano

          (0) 
  1. Mariano Cabalen

    Hi Caetano,

    One of the best and useful code that I have seen!

    Very simple code, very useful. The idea of the code is also very good! It is a kind of general review and check.

    I tested in a sandbox and it found inconsistencies in the planning file (because a test on MRP Areas made by me) and in the BOM buffering.

    All the best!!

    Kind Regards,

    Mariano

    (0) 
    1. Caetano Almeida Post author

      Hi Mariano

      Thank you for the feecback. You can use the report RMMDMONI to compare the MRP runtime before and after these changes and check how much the performance will be improved.

      BR
      Caetano

      (0) 
      1. Mariano Cabalen

        Hi Caetano,

        The performance was improved drastically. Just by maintaining the BOM buffering the Runtime was decreased a 20% for a NEUPL.

        Kind Regards,

        Mariano.

        (0) 
  2. Amulya Punabi

    Hi Caetano,

    I have implemented the same and result says Bom Buffering Not active..As per my understanding we do not have BOM Buffering Concept in 4.6C. Please confirm.

    Thanks

    Amulya

    (0) 
    1. Caetano Almeida Post author

      Hello Amulya

      You are correct, there is no BOM buffering option on 4.6C.

      This program was developed considering release 600 and above releases.

      BR
      Caetano

      (0) 

Leave a Reply