Re: CBO influences
- From: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:56:22 +0000 (UTC)
"EdStevens" <quetico_man@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126283179.991124.138480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Platform: 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.1 on various Win2k or Win2003
>
> Last week a developer brought me a query that was running
> satisfactorily in prod (8.1.7), but took 45 minutes in test (9.2.0).
>
> As it happens, we are in the middle of transitioning a group of
> databases from 8i to 9i, and so have several copies of this database
> running under both versions, on a variety of hardware, ranging from
> honking big 8-cpu blade servers to rusty old 2-cpu doorstops with mice
> nesting on the motherboard.
>
> Pulling an extended trace showed that the test box was spending 99+
> percent of its time on 'hs message to agent' events. (The query
> includes a join to a DB2 table, via the Oracle Transparent Gateway.)
> At first I suspected 8i vs. 9i gateway issues, but as we have tested on
> various platforms, we have eliminated that.
>
> As we tried to narrow down the variables, we discovered that the poor
> execution (high HS message events) only occured on one 9.2 database,
> running on a server that was in the middle of the range of available
> hardware. We found that on every other system, the optimizer was
> generating an access plan that featured several hash joins, where the
> one poor performing system generates nested loops. Even when we
> export/import the entire schema from the 'bad' 9.2 box to a 'good' 9.2
> box. Initialization parms idendtical, data structure and volume
> identical. And yet access plans are different, with disasterous
> results.
>
> So ... at this point I'm grasping for what other factors could
> influence the CBO. Where do I look for a reasonably detailed
> discussion of such? The qeury is rather lengthy, and explain plans
> never format well here. And I wouldn't expect anyone to pore over
> them. Just looking for some pointers on the kinds of things I should
> be looking at. At this point I'm out of ideas.
>
Just giving you a possibility to shoot at:
You say the data structure etc.are identical
and have eliminated the possibility of a
data restructure causing changes in data
packing, cluster factors etc.
Have you checked to see if the bad 9i
database has enabled system statistics
(CPU costing). It is almost a guaranteed
side effect of CPU costing that the optimizer
gets biased (though not necessarily strongly)
towards indexed access paths and away from
table-scan access paths (which tends to mean
more nested loops and fewer hash joins and
sort/merge joins)
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
Cost Based Oracle - Volume 1: Fundamentals
On-shelf date: Nov 2005
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/appearances.html
Public Appearances - schedule updated 4th Sept 2005
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CBO influences
- From: EdStevens
- Re: CBO influences
- References:
- CBO influences
- From: EdStevens
- CBO influences
- Prev by Date: Re: CBO influences
- Next by Date: Re: Multi Level Tree Structure
- Previous by thread: Re: CBO influences
- Next by thread: Re: CBO influences
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading