| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Performance question
Mark,
We are using LMT with ASSM. Extent allocation mode is uniform and not autoallocate. So freelists is not applicable.
Thanks
--Harvinder
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bobak, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:43 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Performance question
Harvinder,
FREELISTS is applicable on an LMT w/ uniform extents.
FREELISTS is not applicable if you're using automatic segment space =3D management.
Are you using ASSM?
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Harvinder Singh
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:29 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Performance question
We are using LMT with uniform clause so freelist not applicable..
I ran the 10046,8 and copy the output in original email:
Wait events looks like: 90% of db file sequential read wait is on file
containing indexes for table.
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait TotalWaited
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bobak, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:26 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Performance question
What do you have for FREELISTS on the table being inserted into?
Ultimately, you need to do a 10046 trace on both sessions and see where
=3D3D3D
the time is spent.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Harvinder Singh
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:00 PM
To: ryan.gaffuri_at_comcast.net; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Performance question
It is run in a loop and we insert 1000 sets of 1000 records and commit after every run that means after every 1000 rows. When I try to run this procedure from 2 sessions to insert 2M records performance degraded more.....This is the only user connected to database.
-----Original Message-----
From: ryan.gaffuri_at_comcast.net =3D
[mailto:ryan.gaffuri_at_comcast.net]=3D3D3D3D20
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:51 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Cc: Harvinder Singh; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Performance question
is that package run under concurrency or is it run serially? Is it run 30 times/second with one session, or are there multiple sessions accessing it?=3D3D3D3D20
if it is used concurrently, how many sessions are running it during your best performance and how many during your worst?=3D3D3D3D20
I am assuming that nothing else of consequence is occurring in the database at this time correct?=3D3D3D3D20
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.htmlput 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.htmlput 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
 |
 |