Re: Comparisons Oracle 220.127.116.11 to Oracle 10.2.0.4
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 is slower than 10.2.0.4 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?