RAC and table partitioning
From: Vasu <vasudevanr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:00:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+O6cLKYqVyqed9xGFNRwrzfPX3Y1DGpQJtujc+y84BDce_Ttw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Common sense says "data usage on RAC nodes- aligned to table partitions " should do better.
Say, a table list partitioned on state column, thus dividing Txn activity of major states such as NY and CA into 2 different partitions. App is serviced by 2 node RAC, and all NY customers are served thru node-1 , and CA customers thru node-2
Simple data load comparison shows that cluster-waits are more in the mixed workload scheme.
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:00:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+O6cLKYqVyqed9xGFNRwrzfPX3Y1DGpQJtujc+y84BDce_Ttw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Common sense says "data usage on RAC nodes- aligned to table partitions " should do better.
Say, a table list partitioned on state column, thus dividing Txn activity of major states such as NY and CA into 2 different partitions. App is serviced by 2 node RAC, and all NY customers are served thru node-1 , and CA customers thru node-2
Simple data load comparison shows that cluster-waits are more in the mixed workload scheme.
My question is : Has anyone seen significant/dramatic performance gains by aligning application usage to table partitioning ? If so, what was the gain % (though it would largely depend on the workload , h/w etc )
Thanks in advance.
-Vasu
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Mon Jul 09 2012 - 21:00:08 CDT