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

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Help! Intermedia Text Misery...

Re: Help! Intermedia Text Misery...

From: Ian Jones <ijones_nspam_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:03:02 -0800
Message-ID: <15eo6sgh659opi60l6vb81ug0u7qf8c0p4@4ax.com>


What type of 8i do you have? I recently had the same problem on AIX with the workgroup server. Of course Oracle should be using the domain index rather than scanning the table. When I upgraded to enterprise (not for this, for other reasons) it did the right thing.

Sounds like a bug to me.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, just wanted to say I have seen the same crappy behaviour

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:57:18 -0600, "Steve Perry" <sperry_at_sprynet.com> wrote:

>I really need some help on this
>
>
>I just installed Oracle's Intermedia text on a Sun 450 (I know. It's kind of
>small, but it's a test server) and the performance is terrible.
> In fact, it's faster for me to do a 'like' then it is to use the "contains"
>clause... The like is 2.5 seconds on a table with 50K rows and the
>"contatins" takes 40 seconds! When I did an autotrace, it shows it's doing a
>tablescan on the table and not even using the text index. I used the
>ctx_query.count and it came back in .5 seconds. I haven't tried any of the
>other ctx_ packages.
>I'm having a hard time believing people are using this. I can only assume I
>have it setup improperly. There are several concerns and questions I have
>and I need answers quickly or I'll have to search for other products.
>
>Maybe somebody can clue me in on the secrets.
>
>Main Issues:
>Response time is dismal (see above)!
>The amount of space for the supporting indexes and tables are 4 times the
>size of the table I'm indexing (see below)! This is a big concern for me.
>Terrible documentation and explanation of what's going on and the "gotchas"
>Lack of tuning information
>Lack of Configuration Information
>I called Oracle Support and the analyst didn't know anything about it
>either. I usually get pretty good help, but they failed here.
>
>I have no choice but to get this working. I hope somebody can help.
>Are there any special admin parameters I should have set or other
>configuration options???
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
>
>
>describe on junk1
>Name Null? Type
>----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
>---
>GID NOT NULL
>VARCHAR2(24)
>DELETED NOT NULL VARCHAR2(1)
>MODIFICATIONDATE NOT NULL DATE
>CREATIONDATE NOT NULL DATE
>CREATEDBY NOT NULL VARCHAR2(24)
>index on this column --->BODY
>VARCHAR2(2000)
>TYPE
>NUMBER
>
>-- Show all objects created to support the index. (marked with ***)
>-- Notice the amount of space used for them compared to the table being
>indexed
>SEGMENT_NAME SEGMENT_TYPE TABLESPACE_NAME EXTENTS
>BYTES
>------------------------------ --------------- --------------- --------- ---
>---------
>JUNK1 TABLE TRASH_DAT
>7 73,400,320
>*** DR$JUNK1_IDX$I TABLE TRASH_IDX 25
>262,144,000
>*** DR$JUNK1_IDX$R TABLE TRASH_DAT 1
>10,485,760
>PK_JUNK1 INDEX TRASH_IDX 1
>10,485,760
>*** SYS_IL0000004149C00006$$ LOBINDEX TRASH_IDX 1
>10,485,760
>*** SYS_IOT_TOP_4152 INDEX TRASH_DAT 1 10,485,760
>*** SYS_IL0000004154C00002$$ LOBINDEX TRASH_DAT 1
>10,485,760
>*** SYS_IOT_TOP_4157 INDEX TRASH_DAT 1
>10,485,760
>*** DR$JUNK1_IDX$X INDEX TRASH_IDX 14
>146,800,640
>*** SYS_LOB0000004149C00006$$ LOBSEGMENT TRASH_IDX 1
>10,485,760
>*** SYS_LOB0000004154C00002$$ LOBSEGMENT TRASH_DAT 1
>10,485,760
>
>Here's some timings and info from my little test:
Received on Thu Dec 30 1999 - 23:03:02 CST

Original text of this message

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