From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Fri Nov 19 15:41:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAJLf9602394 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:09 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAJLf8i02384 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:08 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id D116872EB12; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23782-94; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 8ED7972E0BF; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:41:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <07BA8175B092D611B1DE00B0D049A31501B0BEB8@exchange.ad.starkinvestments.com> From: "Duret, Kathy" To: "'Ron.Reidy@arraybiopharma.com'" , mark.powell@eds.com, oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: RE: 8.1.7.4 migration from 32 bit to 64 bit problem Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:32:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 12489 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: kduret@starkinvestments.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: kduret@starkinvestments.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org The explan plans are very long but it boils down to now the bad explain plan is doing a merge cartesian join. I have tried various things, including re: alter session set optimizer_mode='RULE'; alter session set optimizer_index_cost_adj=50; alter session set optimizer_index_caching=90; alter session set optimizer_index_cost_adj=1; alter session set optimizer_index_caching=100; putting ordered and use_nl in all the views, setting the _complex_view parameter and bouncing the database. INcreasing the SGA. I am willing to trying anything at this point... Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Reidy, Ron [mailto:Ron.Reidy@arraybiopharma.com] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:05 PM To: kduret@starkinvestments.com; mark.powell@eds.com; oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: RE: 8.1.7.4 migration from 32 bit to 64 bit problem Can you post both plans? Maybe someone here can give you an idea. ----------------- Ron Reidy Lead DBA Array BioPharma, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org]On Behalf Of Duret, Kathy Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:48 PM To: 'mark.powell@eds.com'; 'oracle-l@freelists.org' Subject: RE: 8.1.7.4 migration from 32 bit to 64 bit problem Nothing was changed..... I tried to increase the shared pool on the new = dev version and bounced it.... no good. I am trying various hints in all the views and sub views to no avail. I finally got a descent tech now for my tar....=20 Yes I just updated the stats again for the new tech. I am going to give = him a 10053 trace as well. The explain plan for the new database is very strange for this query. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Powell, Mark D [mailto:mark.powell@eds.com] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:06 PM To: 'oracle-l@freelists.org' Subject: RE: 8.1.7.4 migration from 32 bit to 64 bit problem Sometimes even a small change in plans can result in a large change in performance for the query depending on what the change is. Were the statistics updated on the new version? Was the shared pool increased in size to compensate for the additional 4 bytes in every address pointer used. The 64 bit version of 8.1.7 needs about a 20% increase in the shared pool just to run the same load in our experience, but then we have a lot of stored code (pl/sql in the = database). Were any database parameters changed? HTH -- Mark D Powell -- -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org]On Behalf Of Jeremiah Wilton Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:09 PM To: Oracle L (E-mail) Subject: RE: 8.1.7.4 migration from 32 bit to 64 bit problem Sorry if this has been explored, but it sounds like the difference in the plans is the problem. Can you elaborate on WHAT is different about the plans? Is something else hogging temp? -- Jeremiah Wilton Independent Oracle Professional Oracle Certified Master Disaster Recovery - Seminars - Technical Interviews http://www.speakeasy.net/~jwilton On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Duret, Kathy wrote: > two database set up is EXACTLY the same (init.ora, files size etc) > > Query using two views in OLD 32 bit runs in 2 seonds and with the = WHOLE > company running on the database uses less than 1/2 G of temp = tablespaces. > > Query ONLY running on new production database get ora-1652 (out of = temp > space) on 1G of temp space after 81 seconds. > > Once again same set up, same data, BUT the explain plans are = different but > are fairly similiar. -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l This transmission contains information solely for intended recipient and = may be privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protect from disclosure. = If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete = all copies of this transmission. This message and/or the materials = contained herein are not an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, = any securities or other instruments. The information has been obtained or derived from sources believed by us to be reliable, but we do not = represent that it is accurate or complete. Any opinions or estimates contained in this information constitute our judgment as of this date and are subject = to change without notice. Any information you share with us will be used = in the operation of our business, and we do not request and do not want any material, nonpublic information. Absent an express prior written = agreement, we are not agreeing to treat any information confidentially and will use = any and all information and reserve the right to publish or disclose any information you share with us. -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l This electronic message transmission is a PRIVATE communication which = contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is = intended=20 to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are = not the=20 intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, = distribution=20 or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please notify = the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, or notify us = by telephone (877-633-2436, ext. 0), and then delete it from your system. -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l This transmission contains information solely for intended recipient and may be privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protect from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of this transmission. This message and/or the materials contained herein are not an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities or other instruments. The information has been obtained or derived from sources believed by us to be reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete. Any opinions or estimates contained in this information constitute our judgment as of this date and are subject to change without notice. Any information you share with us will be used in the operation of our business, and we do not request and do not want any material, nonpublic information. Absent an express prior written agreement, we are not agreeing to treat any information confidentially and will use any and all information and reserve the right to publish or disclose any information you share with us. -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l