Re: Comparisons Oracle to Oracle

From: Mladen Gogala <>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <hbpkgo$ih0$>

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:37:25 +0200, Arne Ortlinghaus wrote:

> I have made some performance comparison tests on test computers and it
> has turned out that the Oracle 11 databases are in general slower
> compared to the Oracle 10 databases by 10 to 30%. The databases are
> running on Windows Vista and Windows 2003 64 Bit. We hope that the
> release 2 of Oracle 11 gives some enhancements because in general there
> are not many advantages regarding new features useable for us.
> Has someone made similar comparison results?
> Arne Ortlinghaus
> ACS Data Systems

This is meaningless unless you explain the exact meaning of the word "test". I still remember the fuss around the so called "Marketing Invention for Pushing Sales" or MIPS for short. It was a number, determined by running something called "Dhrystone test". It turned out that computer manufacturers were even putting special options into the compilers, to detect if they were compiling the Dhrystone test. As a result, the number produced was quite meaningless and did not have anything to do with the actual performance. The statement that is slower than doesn't mean anything unless you tell us what exactly is slow? Oracle 11g has different memory management, it does full table scans differently, sometimes using direct reads into PGA, and has significantly improved optimizer. I dislike the new memory management and moving memory from SGA to PGA and back. I don't have any numbers to substantiate my disliking it, but I think that the two kinds of memory should be kept separately as they're being used in completely different ways.
Did you optimize the SQL in question on both 11g and 10g? Did you run the 10046 trace to see what is it that the process is waiting on and addressed the gripe?

Received on Thu Oct 22 2009 - 07:51:36 CDT

Original text of this message