Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Oracle 9i physical IO - why only one block reads

RE: Oracle 9i physical IO - why only one block reads

From: Robertson Lee - lerobe <lerobe_at_acxiom.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:44:27 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.005D857C.20031201114427@fatcity.com>


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B825.DE0C531A

Content-Type: text/plain

you may want to raise a call with Oracle support about this. We have an call open with them at present and they have raised a bug for us. We were noticing the same thing as you experienced on AIX 5L 9i RAC 9.2.0.3. Apparently Oracle is interpreting exectly the same statements that ran in minutes on 8i, differently to the way it reads them in 9i (where execution times went up to something like 22 hours !!!)  

HTH   Lee

-----Original Message-----

Biddell, Ian
Sent: 01 December 2003 10:34
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Hi All,  

I am running a big batch reporting program that does way too much SQL (but that's another story)
and when I profile the trace file apart from one pice of SQL all the others are only doing 1 block reads.
As you can see from the example below it did 63,209 physical IO calls and they were all for one block only
Even though it's via Primary Key why doesn't Oracle get even more than one block per read if the index range scan is long? This is just an example from about 45 SQL statements that have the one block reads only.
My multi block read count is 64 on an 8K blocksize, oracle 9.2      

I would have thought I would get more like one of the rare statements that gets 75% at 64 blocks per read.
ie.

62                    0s    0.1%          4   0.037230s      0.034101s
0.044109s              5:681746
63                    0s    0.4%         18   0.039499s      0.034724s
0.062682s              9:706507
64                  129s   75.8%      3,451   0.037441s      0.015427s
0.189772s              9:705852
 
 

Explain plan of staement  

SELECT STATEMENT                     Cost = 510                     0-0-510

...SORT             AGGREGATE                                      1-0-1  
.......TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID  ALLOCATION_TRANSACTION_B       2-1-1 34

...........INDEX    RANGE SCAN      ALLOCATION_TRANSACTION_PK      3-2-1
680    

Thanks for any direction to the answer I can be given, just so I can understand more about what's happening  

Thanks :-)



The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B825.DE0C531A

Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">


<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968031416-01122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff si= ze=3D2>you=20
may want to raise a call with Oracle support about this. We have an call op= en=20
with them at present and they have raised a bug for us. We were noticing th= e=20
same thing&nbsp; as you experienced on AIX 5L 9i RAC 9.2.0.3. Apparently Or= acle=20
is interpreting exectly the same statements that ran in minutes on 8i,=20 differently to the way it reads them in 9i (where execution times went up=  to&nbsp; something like 22 hours !!!)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D968031416-01122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968031416-01122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>HTH</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968031416-01122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968031416-01122003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Lee</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">   <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTah= oma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> ml-errors_at_fatcity.com=    [mailto:ml-errors_at_fatcity.com]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Biddell, Ian<BR><B>Sen= t:</B>=20
  01 December 2003 10:34<BR><B>To:</B> Multiple recipients of list=20   ORACLE-L<BR><B>Subject:</B> Oracle 9i physical IO - why only one block=20   reads<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi All,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I am running a big batch reporting program that = does way=20
  too much SQL (but that's another story)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>and when I profile the trace file apart from one=  pice of=20
  SQL all the others are only doing 1 block reads.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>As you can see from the example below it did 63,= 209=20
  physical IO calls and they were all for one block only</FONT></SPAN></DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Even though it's via Primary Key why doesn't Ora= cle get=20
  even more than one block per read if the index range scan is=20   long?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>This is just an example from about 45 SQL statem= ents that=20
  have the one block reads only.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>My multi block read count is 64 on an 8K blocksi= ze,=20
  oracle 9.2</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D435140910-01122003><FONT face= =3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>   <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D1><FONT=20
  size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B825.DE0C531A--

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Robertson Lee - lerobe
  INET: lerobe_at_acxiom.co.uk

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Mon Dec 01 2003 - 13:44:27 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US