Re: Help with statspack report comparison

On Sep 23, 1:14 pm, Jerome Vitalis
<vitalismanN05..._at_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:16:14 +0200, Martin T. wrote:
> > *** AT10 ***
> > Buffer Cache: 48M Std Block Size: 8K
>
> > *** DE30 ***
> > Buffer Cache: 24M Std Block Size: 8K
> > *** AT10 ***
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Per Second Per Transaction
> > ---------------
> > ---------------
> > Logical reads: 22,854.65
> > 2,039.62 Block changes: 49.10
> > 4.38
> > Physical reads: 197.40
> > 17.62
> > *** DE30 ***
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Per Second Per Transaction
> > ---------------
> > ---------------
> > Logical reads: 52,318.99
> > 22,518.45 Block changes: 20.08
> > 8.64
> > Physical reads: 1,749.80
> > 753.12
>
> In addition to Jonathan and Charles's analysis that will surely help find
> the major culprit, there might be a buffer cache size issue as well. Is
> there an actual reason why on the bad box the cache is twice as small as
> on the good one?
> What does the cache advisory have to say about that?

Thanks for pointing out the difference in the buffer cache size. Some some reason, I started reading the Statspack report at the "Instance Efficiency Percentages" section of the report, completely missing a couple important sections.

Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc. Received on Sun Sep 23 2007 - 17:52:18 CDT