From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Thu Mar 31 09:22:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2VFMeSA008979 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:22:40 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2VFMeem008975 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:22:40 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 035538B0BA; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:20:41 -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 15047-03; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 67FB78B0B0; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:20:40 -0500 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=ZTSkKun7J+KCkyoAMz/nBhlk047DOg8hBALXyeMGKYU0WDJGcqzoFOx/EMGPIOQhUCKyZxdTdKVsxtM0Pep6QzAJSwEDWHWZjfCjkIlSq3QZfhx1QF+gf+x9w4EZOoGmeQQlt0Q94qy/eHirZJTgwJg7zV7n9VaWy6KyNMcAQPM= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:18:56 +0100 From: David Sharples To: "oracle-l@freelists.org" Subject: Re: reducing LIO's In-Reply-To: <97b7fd2f050331061328966b7@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <97b7fd2f050331061328966b7@mail.gmail.com> X-archive-position: 17905 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: davidsharples@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: davidsharples@gmail.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Level: how about re-writing the code? post it On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:13:23 +0300, The Human Fly wrote: > Hello list, > > We have one query in our trading application thats executed 1770 times > in just 20 mintues of time and around 490 users were connected, > bascially, this query runs for every tranaction. The problem with this > query is, it has a lot of buffers gets and using too much cpu, and > when we approch oracle support they ask us to reduce buffers gets, > which I understand. > I have done some bench marking, like, I have created one combination > index and I have forced index hint to use this query. When I force > hint to use newly created index, it reduces cost 50%, but, when I look > at buffers gets, it was more than the previous one. > Is creating index is the way to reduce LIO? If so, when my buffer gets > or more when using index? -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l