Query Performance difference in two DB

Hello gurus,
Im executing a query in two diferent databases. The query is exucting much faster in DB A then DB B. Im not sure if this is because of the configuration of the DB. I tried getting the query plans and they are completly different. Can any body tell me why is this?, can it be because of the differenci in resources and config?. Also, the Db are as fallow
DB A: 2 node RAC 9.2.5, 3gb RAM each node, intel core2 at 2.0 ghz, windows2003
DB B: No rac, 9.2.1, 1 gb RAM, Xeon 2.8 ghz windows 2003
If this is because of the HW ??

In general, query plans will be different because
- The schema is different (i.e. indexes are missing on one database)
- The data volume is different (i.e. one system has more data than another)
- The statistics are different
Query plans should not change because of hardware configurations (other than the corner case where you gather system statistics and those statistics lead Oracle to pick a different path, which generally requires significantly faster I/O subsystems on one of the two machines).
Justin

Similar Messages

Query performance difference with same script in two servers

Dear all,
I have problem with an INSERT Procedure. I have 2 servers, say Server A and Server B, In Server A the query execution will be finished in 4 minutes where in the Server B the same Query its taking more than 2 hours.
If I look into the execution plan in both servers, it looks different.
Both have the Default Parallelism settings.
Cost Threshold for Parallelism : 5
Locks : 0
Max Degree of Parallelism : 0
Query Wait : -1
What causing to slow down the process? Is the parallelism slowing down the process?
When I look into the SERVER A's active running processes in management studio, I found that there are 8 INSERT Queries running with only 2 RUNNABLE and 6 SUSPENDED. Anything is getting locked out or Waiting?
Please help and suggest my a solution for it. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
kranthi kumar G.

Thanks Tony for your reply. Here are my answers.
Are we talking a large amount of inserts?
YES
What is the autogrowth settings for the database files on the two Servers?
Autogrowth by 10%
The Server you are having an issue with, are the any triggers on the Tables?
No.
Is there a background or other trace running on the slow Server that could be impacting performance?
Yes, we are running a monitoring tool to check the performance of the load.
Is there another database on the slow Server causing issues?
No.
This could be a hardware issue; have you use perfmon to see if there are any disk queues?
We will check with our DBA on this.
What is the Raid Configuration? Are the files on a single spindle? If so what is the fragmentation state of any single spindle volume?
There is no Rain Configuration. Its a Windows Azure A7.
Are you automatically updating statistics on the slow Database?
Yes.
Is the Anti Virus Software on the Slow server scanning the data files?
Yes, but not on the database level.
Regards,
kranthi.

Query performance difference -- CPU time difference on two servers

Two SQL servers, server A & B, Hardware information as below:
Server A: Clustered. Two physical processors (4 cores). RAM 64GB, SQL Server max memory: 58GB.
Server B: Standalone. One physical processor (4 cores). RAM 16GB, SQL Server max memory: 10GB.
The two databases on A & B are identical (using backup & restore method), same query execution CPU time are different, it is slower on the cluster server with more CPU & Mmeory. I tried many times and all same result, I also tried run DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
& DBCC FREEPROCCACHE before running the query.
When I run the query, on Server A (Slow one), CPU usage is at 20% ~30%. RAM usage is 14%. It is new set up environment so just me using it now.
When I run the query on Server B (Fast one), CPU usage is 40%, RAM usage is 85%.
Both two servers have SAN connected storage.
Query execution plan is exactly same on two serers.
Could someone give me some advise how to troubleshoot this problem? Any suggestion is appreciated a lot! Thanks a lot!
FYI, Below are the statistics when running same query in same DB on two servers:
Server A CPU & IO Statistics:
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 109 ms, elapsed time = 297 ms.
(1005301 row(s) affected)
Table 'PODT'. Scan count 1, logical reads 55184, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 55180, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'MRICLDEFENT'. Scan count 0, logical reads 71898, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'POHD'. Scan count 1, logical reads 103154, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 103150, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 7769 ms, elapsed time = 16693 ms.
Server B CPU & IO Statistics:
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 32 ms, elapsed time = 39 ms.
(1005301 row(s) affected)
Table 'PODT'. Scan count 1, logical reads 55184, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 55180, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'MRICLDEFENT'. Scan count 0, logical reads 71898, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'POHD'. Scan count 1, logical reads 103154, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 103150, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 3931 ms, elapsed time = 14387 ms.

hi, Vivian_Vivian
i just want to ask you
which sql version do you use？
have you ever tried xevent before？？
if you use the sql2k8 or latter you can try xevent out to find somgthing clues about your cpu time problem
i provide you the script，pls post your output in the xevent here so that we could judge what the head of the problem is
USE [master]
GO
CREATE EVENT SESSION [TrackSQLWait] ON SERVER
ADD EVENT sqlserver.sql_statement_starting (
ACTION ( sqlserver.session_id, sqlserver.database_id,sqlserver.sql_text ,package0.collect_system_time)
WHERE ( sqlserver.database_id = 7 ) ), --★Do
ADD EVENT sqlserver.sql_statement_completed (
ACTION ( sqlserver.session_id, sqlserver.database_id, sqlserver.sql_text ,package0.collect_system_time)
WHERE ( sqlserver.database_id = 7 ) ), --★Do
ADD EVENT sqlserver.error_reported (
ACTION ( sqlserver.session_id, sqlserver.database_id, sqlserver.sql_text ,package0.collect_system_time)
WHERE ( sqlserver.database_id = 7 ) ), --★Do
ADD EVENT sqlos.wait_info (
ACTION ( sqlserver.database_id, sqlserver.session_id, sqlserver.sql_text,sqlserver.plan_handle ,package0.collect_system_time)
WHERE
( duration > 1000
AND ( ( wait_type > 31 -- Waits for latches and important wait resources (not locks)
-- that have exceeded 10 seconds.
AND ( ( wait_type > 47
AND wait_type < 54
OR wait_type < 38
OR ( wait_type > 63
AND wait_type < 70
OR ( wait_type > 96
AND wait_type < 100
OR ( wait_type = 107 )
OR ( wait_type = 113 )
OR ( wait_type > 174
AND wait_type < 179
OR ( wait_type = 186 )
OR ( wait_type = 207 )
OR ( wait_type = 269 )
OR ( wait_type = 283 )
OR ( wait_type = 284 )
OR ( duration > 30000 -- Waits for locks that have exceeded 30 secs.
AND wait_type < 22
ADD TARGET package0.asynchronous_file_target ( SET filename = 'E:\ExtendedEvent\TrackSQLWait.xel' ,
metadatafile = 'E:\ExtendedEvent\TrackSQLWait.xem' )
WITH ( MAX_MEMORY = 4 MB ,
EVENT_RETENTION_MODE = ALLOW_SINGLE_EVENT_LOSS )
GO
ALTER EVENT SESSION [TrackSQLWait]
ON SERVER
STATE=START
-- Query the Event data from the Target.
SELECT event_data.value('(event/@name)[1]', 'varchar(50)') AS [event_name] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="source_database_id"]/value)[1]',
'int') AS [source_database_id] ,
OBJECT_NAME(event_data.value('(event/data[@name="object_id"]/value)[1]',
'int')) AS [object] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="object_type"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(60)') AS [object_type] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="state"]/text)[1]', 'varchar(50)') AS [state] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="duration"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') AS [duration] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="cpu"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') AS [cpu] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="reads"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') AS [reads] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="writes"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') AS [writes] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="error"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') AS [error] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="severity"]/value)[1]', 'int') AS [severity] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="user_defined"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(5)') AS [user_defined] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="message"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(max)') AS [message] ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="wait_type"]/text)[1]',
'varchar(250)') AS wait_typetype ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="wait_type"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(250)') AS wait_typevalue ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="max_duration"]/value)[1]',
'bigint') AS max_duration ,
event_data.value('(event/data[@name="completed_count"]/value)[1]',
'bigint') AS [completed_count] ,
event_data.value('(event/action[@name="plan_handle"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(max)') AS [plan_handle] ,
DATEADD(hh, DATEDIFF(hh, GETUTCDATE(), CURRENT_TIMESTAMP),
event_data.value('(event/action[@name="collect_system_time"]/text)[1]',
'datetime2')) AS [system_time] ,
event_data.value('(event/action[@name="session_id"]/value)[1]',
'bigint') AS [session_id] ,
event_data.value('(event/action[@name="sql_text"]/value)[1]',
'varchar(max)') AS [sql_text]
FROM ( SELECT CAST(event_data AS XML) AS event_data
FROM sys.fn_xe_file_target_read_file('E:\ExtendedEvent\TrackSQLWait_*.xel',
'E:\ExtendedEvent\TrackSQLWait_*.xem',
NULL, NULL)
) AS tab
WHERE event_data.value('(event/data[@name="duration"]/value)[1]', 'bigint') > 100
AND event_data.value('(event/@name)[1]', 'varchar(50)') LIKE 'wait_info'
ORDER BY [system_time]
ALTER EVENT SESSION [TrackSQLWait]
ON SERVER
STATE=STOP
GO
DROP EVENT SESSION [TrackSQLWait] ON SERVER
please replacing the related parameter to fit for your situation
thanks

Query performance - Difference between OPERATOR - Exists and IN

Hi,
I Have Two Tables VD,ID .Each table containg one lakh rows.
CREATE TABLE VD (
SRNO NUMBER(12) ,
UNIT Varchar2(2) ,
CREATE TABLE ID ( SRNO NUMBER(12),
PID Varchar2(2) ,
Sid Varchar2(20)
In my Application i need to display Column(SRNO) from table VD If the Column(SRNO)exists in Table ID
for the given PID and SID.
Which query has better performance in below Queries ?
Select SRNO from VD Where SRNO in( Select SRNO From ID Where PID = :A
And Sid = :B )
Select SRNO from VD V Where Exists( Select 'X' From ID Z Where Z.PID = :A
And Z.Sid = :B
And Z.SRNO = V.SRNO )
Version : Oracle 10g
Thanks ....
Sathi

user10732947 wrote:
pls refer to :-)
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:953229842074
And which part are you referring to specifically?
It backs up what Toon already mentioned....
ops$tkyte@ORA10GR2> SELECT /* EXISTS example */
2           e.employee_id, e.first_name, e.last_name, e.salary
3    FROM employees e
4   WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM orders o                  /* Note 1 */
5                    WHERE e.employee_id = o.sales_rep_id   /* Note 2 */
6                      AND o.customer_id = 144);
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 551415261
| Id | Operation                    | Name      | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)|
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |           |    67 | 4087 |    49   (3)|
|   1 | NESTED LOOPS                |           |    67 | 4087 |    49   (3)|
|   2 |   SORT UNIQUE                |           |    67 | 1139 |    14   (0)|
|* 3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL         | ORDERS    |    67 | 1139 |    14   (0)|
|   4 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| EMPLOYEES |     1 |    44 |     1   (0)|
|* 5 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | EMP_PK    |     1 |       |     0   (0)|
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - filter("O"."CUSTOMER_ID"=144)
   5 - access("E"."EMPLOYEE_ID"="O"."SALES_REP_ID")
ops$tkyte@ORA10GR2>
ops$tkyte@ORA10GR2> SELECT /* IN example */
2           e.employee_id, e.first_name, e.last_name, e.salary
3      FROM employees e
4     WHERE e.employee_id IN (SELECT o.sales_rep_id         /* Note 4 */
5                               FROM orders o
6                              WHERE o.customer_id = 144);
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 551415261
| Id | Operation                    | Name      | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)|
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |           |    67 | 4087 |    49   (3)|
|   1 | NESTED LOOPS                |           |    67 | 4087 |    49   (3)|
|   2 |   SORT UNIQUE                |           |    67 | 1139 |    14   (0)|
|* 3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL         | ORDERS    |    67 | 1139 |    14   (0)|
|   4 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| EMPLOYEES |     1 |    44 |     1   (0)|
|* 5 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | EMP_PK    |     1 |       |     0   (0)|
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - filter("O"."CUSTOMER_ID"=144)
   5 - access("E"."EMPLOYEE_ID"="O"."SALES_REP_ID")Two identical Execution plans...

How large of a performance difference between two different graphic cards

Hey I am in the middle of upgrading my system and I am looking to spend my tax return on0 graphics cards. I am going to run an SLI with either the Nvidia GTX 660 or the GTX 680. Now I realize the 680 is hands down better than the 660 what I want to know is, is it worth the price differance proformance wise. I plan to get two of these and SLI them, here are the two I am looking at
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127699 - the 660 GTX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127723 - the 680 GTX
I am running CS6 so I want to stay in the 600 series of Nvidia's cards which are on the white list for CS6. I want to choose between these two cards because I am running eyefinity right now and I cannot go back, these support Nvidia Surround out of the box with no adapters needed. Also MSI's heatsinks are fantastic with these cards.
So basically what I am asking is the proformance I will get with 2 of the 680s worth the $500 price differance?
Here is my system as it stands now:
CPU - AMD Phenom II X6 3.2 GHz -> Will upgrade to AMD 9590 x8 5GHz after I buy the graphics cards
16GB Corsair Dominator 8-8-8-20 RAM
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD (main drive)
Corsair 64GB SSD as a scratch disk
2TB WD Black HDD as mass storage
AMD Radion 6790 -> Will upgrade to one of the cards listed above
Windows 8.1

For After Effects, there is no reason to spend the extra money unless you are using one specific feature: the ray-traced 3D renderer. If you're not using that feature, and your focus is After Effects, then spend your extra money on RAM and SSDs.
See this page for details about how After Effects uses the GPU:
http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2012/05/gpu-cuda-opengl-features-in-after-effects-cs6. html
See this page for information about hardware for Premiere Pro and After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

SQL query performance difference with Index Hint in Oracle 10g

Hi,
I was having a problem in SQL select query which was taking around 20 seconds to get the results. So, by hit and trail method I added Index Oracle Hint into the same query with the list of indexes of the tables and the results are retrieved with in 10 milli seconds. I am not sure to get How this is working with Indexes Hint.
The query with out Index Hint:
select /*+rule*/ FdnTab2.fdn, paramTab3.attr_name from fdnmappingtable FdnTab, fdnmappingtable FdnTab2, parametertable paramTab1 ,parametertable paramTab3 where FdnTab.id=52787 and paramTab1.id= FdnTab.id and paramTab3.id = FdnTab.id and paramTab3.attr_value = FdnTab2.fdn and paramTab1.attr_name='harqUsersMax' and paramTab1.attr_value <> 'DEFAULT' and exists ( select ParamTab2.attr_name from parametertable ParamTab2, templaterelationtable TemplateTab2 where TemplateTab2.id=FdnTab.id and ParamTab2.id=TemplateTab2.template_id and ParamTab2.id=FdnTab2.id and ParamTab2.attr_name=paramTab1.attr_name) ==> EXECUTION TIME: 20 secs
The same query with Index Hint:
select /*+INDEX(fdnmappingtable[PRIMARY_KY_FDNMAPPINGTABLE],parametertable[PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE])*/ FdnTab2.fdn, paramTab3.attr_name from fdnmappingtable FdnTab, fdnmappingtable FdnTab2, parametertable paramTab1 ,parametertable paramTab3 where FdnTab.id=52787 and paramTab1.id= FdnTab.id and paramTab3.id = FdnTab.id and paramTab3.attr_value = FdnTab2.fdn and paramTab1.attr_name='harqUsersMax' and paramTab1.attr_value <> 'DEFAULT' and exists ( select ParamTab2.attr_name from parametertable ParamTab2, templaterelationtable TemplateTab2 where TemplateTab2.id=FdnTab.id and ParamTab2.id=TemplateTab2.template_id and ParamTab2.id=FdnTab2.id and ParamTab2.attr_name=paramTab1.attr_name) ==> EXECUTION TIME: 10 milli secs
Can any one suggest what could be the real problem?
Regards,
Purushotham

Sorry,
The right query and the explain plan:
select /*+rule*/ FdnTab2.fdn, paramTab3.attr_name from fdnmappingtable FdnTab, fdnmappingtable FdnTab2, parametertable paramTab1 ,parametertable paramTab3 where FdnTab.id=52787 and paramTab1.id= FdnTab.id and paramTab3.id = FdnTab.id and paramTab3.attr_value = FdnTab2.fdn and paramTab1.attr_name='harqUsersMax' and paramTab1.attr_value <> 'DEFAULT' and exists ( select ParamTab2.attr_name from parametertable ParamTab2, templaterelationtable TemplateTab2 where TemplateTab2.id=FdnTab.id and ParamTab2.id=TemplateTab2.template_id and ParamTab2.id=FdnTab2.id and ParamTab2.attr_name=paramTab1.attr_name)
SQL> @$ORACLE_HOME/rdbms/admin/utlxpls.sql
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 651267974
| Id | Operation | Name |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | |
|* 1 | FILTER | |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS | |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | |
|* 5 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_FDNMAPPINGTABLE |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|* 6 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| PARAMETERTABLE |
|* 7 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE |
| 8 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | PARAMETERTABLE |
|* 9 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE |
| 10 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | FDNMAPPINGTABLE |
|* 11 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | SYS_C005695 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | |
|* 13 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE |
|* 14 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KEY_TRTABLE |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT 0 FROM "TEMPLATERELATIONTABLE"
"TEMPLATETAB2","PARAMETERTABLE" "PARAMTAB2" WHERE
"PARAMTAB2"."ATTR_NAME"=:B1 AND "PARAMTAB2"."ID"=:B2 AND
"PARAMTAB2"."ID"="TEMPLATETAB2"."TEMPLATE_ID" AND
"TEMPLATETAB2"."ID"=:B3))
5 - access("FDNTAB"."ID"=52787)
6 - filter("PARAMTAB1"."ATTR_VALUE"<>'DEFAULT')
7 - access("PARAMTAB1"."ID"="FDNTAB"."ID" AND
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
"PARAMTAB1"."ATTR_NAME"='harqUsersMax')
9 - access("PARAMTAB3"."ID"="FDNTAB"."ID")
11 - access("PARAMTAB3"."ATTR_VALUE"="FDNTAB2"."FDN")
13 - access("PARAMTAB2"."ID"=:B1 AND "PARAMTAB2"."ATTR_NAME"=:B2)
14 - access("TEMPLATETAB2"."ID"=:B1 AND
"PARAMTAB2"."ID"="TEMPLATETAB2"."TEMPLATE_ID")
Note
- rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)
43 rows selected.
WITH INDEX HINT:
select /*+INDEX(fdnmappingtable[PRIMARY_KY_FDNMAPPINGTABLE],parametertable[PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE])*/ FdnTab2.fdn, paramTab3.attr_name from fdnmappingtable FdnTab, fdnmappingtable FdnTab2, parametertable paramTab1 ,parametertable paramTab3 where FdnTab.id=52787 and paramTab1.id= FdnTab.id and paramTab3.id = FdnTab.id and paramTab3.attr_value = FdnTab2.fdn and paramTab1.attr_name='harqUsersMax' and paramTab1.attr_value <> 'DEFAULT' and exists ( select ParamTab2.attr_name from parametertable ParamTab2, templaterelationtable TemplateTab2 where TemplateTab2.id=FdnTab.id and ParamTab2.id=TemplateTab2.template_id and ParamTab2.id=FdnTab2.id and ParamTab2.attr_name=paramTab1.attr_name);
SQL> @$ORACLE_HOME/rdbms/admin/utlxpls.sql
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 2924316070
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | B
ytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 |
916 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | |
| | |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 |
916 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 |
401 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 |
207 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| PARAMETERTABLE | 1 |
194 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 6 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE | 1 |
| 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_FDNMAPPINGTABLE | 1 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
13 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 8 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | PARAMETERTABLE | 1 |
194 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 9 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE | 1 |
| 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | FDNMAPPINGTABLE | 1 |
515 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|* 11 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | SYS_C005695 | 1 |
| 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 |
91 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KEY_TRTABLE | 1 |
26 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PRIMARY_KY_PARAMETERTABLE | 1 |
65 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ */ 0 FROM "TEMPLATERELATIONTABLE" "TEMPLATETAB
2","PARAMETERTABLE"
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
"PARAMTAB2" WHERE "PARAMTAB2"."ATTR_NAME"=:B1 AND "PARAMTAB2"."ID"
=:B2 AND
"TEMPLATETAB2"."TEMPLATE_ID"=:B3 AND "TEMPLATETAB2"."ID"=:B4))
5 - filter("PARAMTAB1"."ATTR_VALUE"<>'DEFAULT')
6 - access("PARAMTAB1"."ID"=52787 AND "PARAMTAB1"."ATTR_NAME"='harqUsersMax')
7 - access("FDNTAB"."ID"=52787)
9 - access("PARAMTAB3"."ID"=52787)
11 - access("PARAMTAB3"."ATTR_VALUE"="FDNTAB2"."FDN")
13 - access("TEMPLATETAB2"."ID"=:B1 AND "TEMPLATETAB2"."TEMPLATE_ID"=:B2)
14 - access("PARAMTAB2"."ID"=:B1 AND "PARAMTAB2"."ATTR_NAME"=:B2)
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Note
- dynamic sampling used for this statement
39 rows selected.

Query performance in two environments

Hi all,
I have developed simple select queries on a multiprovider and I am facing issues with query performance in quality box. A query runs pretty fast in in dev and return results while the same one dumps in Quality environment giving a time out error. This sounds more strange because our dev box has comparitively more records than the quality environment right now.
On anlyzing the query path in both environments, we noticed that the query does an index scan in dev but not in Quality environment, especially when the selection is such that the query is supposed to return lot of records. Since the query does a sequential scan in quality, it dumps. Is there any setting that I need to make seprately in the quality environment.
Any tips on query optimization would be great help. Thanks
Regards
Niranjana

Execute some of the RSRT tests in the QA for the query using "Execute+Debug" option and use some test for Multiprovider and Databases checks in it ,try to compare with Dev as well.
Hope it Helps
Chetan
@CP..

Difference between two date in bex query

Hi all,
I need to do a difference between two date using formula variable processing type customer exit beaucause I must use factory calendar in the formula.
How can I do it?
Can you give me an example of the routine?
Thanks a lot
Gianmarco

Hi,
You can still use the same code to copy it and customize as per your need. All you need to do is to subract the dates using the class: CL_ABAP_TSTMP after converting to timestamp and resulting seconds you convert back to days....Please get help from the developers to do this...
Also, ensure that you write back this difference value to your variable so you get it on the reports for your calculations...
Cheers,
Emmanuel.

Poor query performance when joining CONTAINS to another table

We just recently began evaluating Oracle Text for a search solution. We need to be able to search a table that can have over 20+ million rows. Each user may only have visibility to a tiny fraction of those rows. The goal is to have a single Oracle Text index that represents all of the searchable columns in the table (multi column datastore) and provide a score for each search result so that we can sort the search results in descending order by score. What we're seeing is that query performance from TOAD is extremely fast when we write a simple CONTAINS query against the Oracle Text indexed table. However, when we attempt to first reduce the rows the CONTAINS query needs to search by using a WITH we find that the query performance degrades significantly.
For example, we can find all the records a user has access to from our base table by the following query:
SELECT d.duns_loc
FROM duns d
JOIN primary_contact pc
ON d.duns_loc = pc.duns_loc
AND pc.emp_id = :employeeID;
This query can execute in <100 ms. In the working example, this query returns around 1200 rows of the primary key duns_loc.
Our search query looks like this:
SELECT score(1), d.*
FROM duns d
WHERE CONTAINS(TEXT_KEY, :search,1) > 0
ORDER BY score(1) DESC;
The :search value in this example will be 'highway'. The query can return 246k rows in around 2 seconds.
2 seconds is good, but we should be able to have a much faster response if the search query did not have to search the entire table, right? Since each user can only "view" records they are assigned to we reckon that if the search operation only had to scan a tiny tiny percent of the TEXT index we should see faster (and more relevant) results. If we now write the following query:
WITH subset
AS
(SELECT d.duns_loc
FROM duns d
JOIN primary_contact pc
ON d.duns_loc = pc.duns_loc
AND pc.emp_id = :employeeID
SELECT score(1), d.*
FROM duns d
JOIN subset s
ON d.duns_loc = s.duns_loc
WHERE CONTAINS(TEXT_KEY, :search,1) > 0
ORDER BY score(1) DESC;
For reasons we have not been able to identify this query actually takes longer to execute than the sum of the durations of the contributing parts. This query takes over 6 seconds to run. We nor our DBA can seem to figure out why this query performs worse than a wide open search. The wide open search is not ideal as the query would end up returning records to the user they don't have access to view.
Has anyone ever ran into something like this? Any suggestions on what to look at or where to go? If anyone would like more information to help in diagnosis than let me know and i'll be happy to produce it here.
Thanks!!

Sometimes it can be good to separate the tables into separate sub-query factoring (with) clauses or inline views in the from clause or an in clause as a where condition. Although there are some differences, using a sub-query factoring (with) clause is similar to using an inline view in the from clause. However, you should avoid duplication. You should not have the same table in two different places, as in your original query. You should have indexes on any columns that the tables are joined on, your statistics should be current, and your domain index should have regular synchronization, optimization, and periodically rebuild or drop and recreate to keep it performing with maximum efficiency. The following demonstration uses a composite domain index (cdi) with filter by, as suggested by Roger, then shows the explained plans for your original query, and various others. Your original query has nested loops. All of the others have the same plan without the nested loops. You could also add index hints.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- tables:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> CREATE TABLE duns
2    (duns_loc NUMBER,
3      text_key VARCHAR2 (30))
4 /
Table created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> CREATE TABLE primary_contact
2    (duns_loc NUMBER,
3      emp_id       NUMBER)
4 /
Table created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- data:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> INSERT INTO duns VALUES (1, 'highway')
2 /
1 row created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> INSERT INTO primary_contact VALUES (1, 1)
2 /
1 row created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> INSERT INTO duns
2 SELECT object_id, object_name
3 FROM   all_objects
4 WHERE object_id > 1
5 /
76027 rows created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> INSERT INTO primary_contact
2 SELECT object_id, namespace
3 FROM   all_objects
4 WHERE object_id > 1
5 /
76027 rows created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- indexes:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> CREATE INDEX duns_duns_loc_idx
2 ON duns (duns_loc)
3 /
Index created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> CREATE INDEX primary_contact_duns_loc_idx
2 ON primary_contact (duns_loc)
3 /
Index created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- composite domain index (cdi) with filter by clause
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- as suggested by Roger:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> CREATE INDEX duns_text_key_idx
2 ON duns (text_key)
3 INDEXTYPE IS CTXSYS.CONTEXT
4 FILTER BY duns_loc
5 /
Index created.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- gather statistics:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS (USER, 'DUNS')
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS (USER, 'PRIMARY_CONTACT')
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- variables:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> VARIABLE employeeid NUMBER
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> EXEC :employeeid := 1
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> VARIABLE search VARCHAR2(100)
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> EXEC :search := 'highway'
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- original query:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> SET AUTOTRACE ON EXPLAIN
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> WITH
2    subset AS
3       (SELECT d.duns_loc
4        FROM      duns d
5        JOIN      primary_contact pc
6        ON      d.duns_loc = pc.duns_loc
7        AND      pc.emp_id = :employeeID)
8 SELECT score(1), d.*
9 FROM   duns d
10 JOIN   subset s
11 ON     d.duns_loc = s.duns_loc
12 WHERE CONTAINS (TEXT_KEY, :search,1) > 0
13 ORDER BY score(1) DESC
14 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 4228563783
| Id | Operation                      | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |                   |     2 |    84 |   121   (4)| 00:00:02 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                 |                   |     2 |    84 |   121   (4)| 00:00:02 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN                    |                   |     2 |    84 |   120   (3)| 00:00:02 |
|   3 |    NESTED LOOPS                |                   |    38 | 1292 |    50   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   4 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |      DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 6 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN           | DUNS_DUNS_LOC_IDX |     1 |     5 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL           | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("D"."DUNS_LOC"="PC"."DUNS_LOC")
   5 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("D"."TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   6 - access("D"."DUNS_LOC"="D"."DUNS_LOC")
   7 - filter("PC"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- queries with better plans (no nested loops):
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- subquery factoring (with) clauses:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> WITH
2    subset1 AS
3       (SELECT pc.duns_loc
4        FROM      primary_contact pc
5        WHERE pc.emp_id = :employeeID),
6    subset2 AS
7       (SELECT score(1), d.*
8        FROM      duns d
9        WHERE CONTAINS (TEXT_KEY, :search,1) > 0)
10 SELECT subset2.*
11 FROM   subset1, subset2
12 WHERE subset1.duns_loc = subset2.duns_loc
13 ORDER BY score(1) DESC
14 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 153618227
| Id | Operation                     | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN                   |                   |    38 | 1406 |    82   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL          | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("PC"."DUNS_LOC"="D"."DUNS_LOC")
   4 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   5 - filter("PC"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- inline views (sub-queries in the from clause):
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> SELECT subset2.*
2 FROM   (SELECT pc.duns_loc
3           FROM   primary_contact pc
4           WHERE pc.emp_id = :employeeID) subset1,
5          (SELECT score(1), d.*
6           FROM   duns d
7           WHERE CONTAINS (TEXT_KEY, :search,1) > 0) subset2
8 WHERE subset1.duns_loc = subset2.duns_loc
9 ORDER BY score(1) DESC
10 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 153618227
| Id | Operation                     | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN                   |                   |    38 | 1406 |    82   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL          | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("PC"."DUNS_LOC"="D"."DUNS_LOC")
   4 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   5 - filter("PC"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- ansi join:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> SELECT SCORE(1), duns.*
2 FROM   duns
3 JOIN   primary_contact
4 ON     duns.duns_loc = primary_contact.duns_loc
5 WHERE CONTAINS (duns.text_key, :search, 1) > 0
6 AND    primary_contact.emp_id = :employeeid
7 ORDER BY SCORE(1) DESC
8 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 153618227
| Id | Operation                     | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN                   |                   |    38 | 1406 |    82   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL          | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("DUNS"."DUNS_LOC"="PRIMARY_CONTACT"."DUNS_LOC")
   4 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("DUNS"."TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   5 - filter("PRIMARY_CONTACT"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- old join:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> SELECT SCORE(1), duns.*
2 FROM   duns, primary_contact
3 WHERE CONTAINS (duns.text_key, :search, 1) > 0
4 AND    duns.duns_loc = primary_contact.duns_loc
5 AND    primary_contact.emp_id = :employeeid
6 ORDER BY SCORE(1) DESC
7 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 153618227
| Id | Operation                     | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN                   |                   |    38 | 1406 |    82   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL          | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("DUNS"."DUNS_LOC"="PRIMARY_CONTACT"."DUNS_LOC")
   4 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("DUNS"."TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   5 - filter("PRIMARY_CONTACT"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> -- in clause:
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2> SELECT SCORE(1), duns.*
2 FROM   duns
3 WHERE CONTAINS (duns.text_key, :search, 1) > 0
4 AND    duns.duns_loc IN
5          (SELECT primary_contact.duns_loc
6           FROM   primary_contact
7           WHERE primary_contact.emp_id = :employeeid)
8 ORDER BY SCORE(1) DESC
9 /
SCORE(1)   DUNS_LOC TEXT_KEY
        18          1 highway
1 row selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 3825821668
| Id | Operation                     | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | SORT ORDER BY                |                   |    38 | 1406 |    83   (5)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 |   HASH JOIN SEMI              |                   |    38 | 1406 |    82   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DUNS              |    38 | 1102 |    11   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     DOMAIN INDEX              | DUNS_TEXT_KEY_IDX |       |       |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 5 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL          | PRIMARY_CONTACT   | 4224 | 33792 |    70   (3)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - access("DUNS"."DUNS_LOC"="PRIMARY_CONTACT"."DUNS_LOC")
   4 - access("CTXSYS"."CONTAINS"("DUNS"."TEXT_KEY",:SEARCH,1)>0)
   5 - filter("PRIMARY_CONTACT"."EMP_ID"=TO_NUMBER(:EMPLOYEEID))
SCOTT@orcl_11gR2>

Query performance is slow in RAC

Hi,
I am analyzing the purpose of Oracle RAC and how it will fit/useful into our product. So i have setup two nodes RAC 10g in our lab and i am doing various testing with RAC.
Test 1 : Fail-over:
~~~~~~~~~~~
First i have started with fail-over testing, done two types of testing "connect-time" failover and "TAF".
Here TAF has some limitation, it's not handle DML transactions.
Test 2 : Performance:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second, i have done performance testing. Here i have taken 10,000 records for insert, update, read and delete operations with singe and two node instances. Here there is no performance difference with single and two nodes.
But i am assumed, RAC will provide high performance than single instance oracle.
So i am in confusion, whether we can choose Oracle RAC to our project.
DBAs,
Please give me your answers for my following questions, it will be great helpful for me to come to conclusion:
1. What is the main purpose of RAC (because in my assumption, failover is partially supported and no difference in performance of query processing) ?
2. What kind of business enviroment RAC will perfectly fit ?
3. What is the unique benefits in RAC, which is not in single instance Oracle?
Thanks
Edited by: Anandhan on Aug 7, 2009 1:40 AM

Hi !
Well RAc ensures High Availibility. With Conditions Apply !
For the database create more than 1 service and have applications connected to the database using these services created.
RAC is service driven to access the database. So if plannned thoughtfully, Load on the database can be distributed physically using the services created for the database.
SO if you have a single database servicing more than one application( of any type(s) ie oltp/warehouse etc.) connect to the database using different services so that the Init parameters are set for the purpose of the connection.
NOTE: each database instance running on node can have different Init_sid.ora to ensure optimum perfromance for the designated purpose.
RAC uses CSS with cache fusion for reducing I/O on a running production server by transferring the buffers from the Global cache to nodes when required thus reducing the Physical Reads. This is contribution to the perfromance front.
Any database that requires access with different init.oa for the same physical data; RAC is the best way!
For High Avail. use TAF type service.

SQL Server 2008R2 vs 2012 OLTP performance difference - log flushes size different

Hi all,
I'm doing some performance test against 2 identical virtual machine (each VM has the same virtual resources and use the same physical hardware).
The 1° VM has Windows Server 2008R2 and SQL Server 2008R2 Standard Edition
the 2° VM has Windows Server 2012R2 and SQL Server 2012 SP2 + CU1 Standard Edition
I'm using hammerDB (http://hammerora.sourceforge.net/) has benchmark tool to simulate TPC-C test.
I've noticed a significative performance difference between SQL2008R2 and SQL2012, 2008R2 does perform better. Let's explain what I've found:
I use a third VM as client where HammerDB software is installed, I run the test against the two SQL Servers (one server at a time), in SQL2008R2 I reach an higher number of transaction per minutes.
HammerDB creates a database on each database server (so the database are identical except for the compatibility level), and then HammerDB execute a sequence of query (insert-update) simulating the TPC-C standard, the sequence is identical on both servers.
Using perfmon on the two servers I've found a very interesting thing:
In the disk used by the hammerDB database's log (I use separate disk for data and log) I've monitored the Avg. Disk Bytes/Write and I've noticed tha the SQL2012 writes to the log with smaller packet (let's say an average of 3k against an average of 5k written
by the SQL 2008R2).
I've also checked the value of Log flushes / sec on both servers and noticed that SQL2012 do, on average, more log flushes per second, so more log flushes of less bytes...
I've searched for any documented difference in the way log buffers are flushed to disk between 2008r2 and 2012 but found no difference.
Anyone can piont me in the correct direction?

Andrea,
1) first of all fn_db_log exposes a lot of fields that do not exist in SQL2008R2
This is correct, though I can't elaborate as I do not know how/why the changes were made.
2) for the same DML or DDL the number of log record generated are different
I thought as much (but didn't know the workload).
I would like to read and to study what this changes are! Have you some usefu link to interals docs?
Unfortunately I cannot offer anything as the function used is currently undocumented and there are no published papers or documentation by MS on reading log records/why/how. I would assume this to all be NDA information by Microsoft.
Sorry I can't be of more help, but you at least know that the different versions do have behavior changes.
Sean Gallardy | Blog | Microsoft Certified Master

Query performance.

Hi
I have created a procedure that accepts two bind variables from a report. The user will select one or the other, both or neither of the variables. To return the appropriate results i have created a view with the entire result set and in the procedure are a number of if statements that determine what to place in the where clause selecting from the view, depending on what variables populated.
My concern is that the query that generates the view includes several joins and in total outputs around 150,000 records and seems to be rather slow to run.
Would you recommend another solution such as placing the query in the procedure itself repeated for every if statement?
Or should I work on the query performance?
What would be the most efficient solution for my problem?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

[url http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=501834&tstart=0]When your query takes too long

Query Performance issue in Oracle Forms

Hi All,
I am using oracle 9i DB and forms 6i.
In query form ,qry took long time to load the data into form.
There are two tables used here.
1 table(A) contains 5 crore records another table(B) has 2 crore records.
The recods fetching range 1-500 records.
Table (A) has no index on main columns,after created the index on main columns in table A ,the query is fetched the data quickly.
But DBA team dont want to create index on table A.Because of table space problem.
If create the index on main table (A) ,then performance overhead in production.
Concurrent user capacity is 1500.
Is there any alternative methods to handle this problem.
Regards,
RS

1) What is a crore? Wikipedia seems to indicate that it's either 10,000,000 or 500,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
I'll assume that we're talking about tables with 50 million and 20 million rows, respectively.
2) Large tables with no indexes are definitely going to be slow. If you don't have the disk space to create an appropriate index, surely the right answer is to throw a bit of disk into the system.
3) I don't understand the comment "If create the index on main table (A) ,then performance overhead in production." That seems to contradict the comment you made earlier that the query performs well when you add the index. Are you talking about some other performance overhead?
Justin

Query Performance in OLAP MSAS Universe using Filter

Hello,
We are at Business Objects XI 3.1/SP2. We have an OLAP universe that is built on MSAS 2008 OLAP Cube.
I see this huge performance difference in using a filter i have built for Today. Here are the MDX's- i ran the query in webi and isolated the mdx using SQL profiler
Case 1 - Hardcoded Date
CREATE SET [ Sales Cube].NSB6286E583B514117B33B203672E2A951_0 AS { [Team].[US Sales] }
CREATE SET [Sales Cube].NS7D81E652D4684D73B09A216CFE8934EE_1 AS Filter([Date].[Calendar Date].levels(4).allmembers,((([Date].[Calendar Date].currentmember.properties("CAPTION")="09 SEP 2010"))))
SELECT
{[Measures].[Sales YTD ]} ON COLUMNS
,NON EMPTY
    CrossJoin
      CrossJoin
        CrossJoin
          NSB6286E583B514117B33B203672E2A951_0
         ,NS7D81E652D4684D73B09A216CFE8934EE_1
       ,AddCalculatedMembers
          [Team].[Employee].MEMBERS
     ,AddCalculatedMembers
        [Clients].MEMBERS
DIMENSION PROPERTIES
    MEMBER_UNIQUE_NAME
   ,MEMBER_CAPTION
   ON ROWS
FROM [Sales Cube];
This comes back really fast..within seconds..
Now i have a today filter in the universe which is built as below..where Today is a ready-made function available in our cube.
<FILTER EXPRESSION="IIF(([Date].[Calendar Date].currentmember.properties("CAPTION"))=([Today].item(0).MEMBER_CAPTION),1, 0)"><CONDITION
OPERATORCONDITION="Equal"><CONSTANT
CAPTION="1"/></CONDITION></FILTER>
When i use this to run my report.. It just keeps running for 30 mins and then just time's out. Can i design the filter better, so that instead of doing an IIF, it just uses a single value.
Case 2 - Filter Date
CREATE SET [Sales Cube].NS34A72A83298145649AE7286D9F179AF_0 AS { [Team].[US Sales] }
WITH
MEMBER [Measures].[2FF3DF31-5D02-4A9B-A8,BC,E7,25,C2,30,1B,61] AS
    IIF
        [Date].[Calendar Date].CurrentMember.Properties("CAPTION")
      =
        [Today].Item(0).Member_Caption
     ,1
     ,0
SELECT
{[Measures].[Sales YTD]} ON COLUMNS
,NON EMPTY
    Filter
      CrossJoin
        CrossJoin
          CrossJoin
            AddCalculatedMembers
              [Date].[Calendar Date].[Date].MEMBERS
           ,NS34A72A83298145649AE7286D9F179AF_0
         ,AddCalculatedMembers
            [Team].[Employee].MEMBERS
       ,AddCalculatedMembers
          [Clients].MEMBERS
      [Measures].[2FF3DF31-5D02-4A9B-A8,BC,E7,25,C2,30,1B,61] = 1
DIMENSION PROPERTIES
    MEMBER_UNIQUE_NAME
   ,MEMBER_CAPTION
   ON ROWS
FROM [Sales Cube];

Pablo,
This appears to be a generic database or OS issue, not a Text specific issue. It really depends on what your application is doing.
If your application is doing some other database activity such as queries or DMLs on other non-text tables, chances are Oracle Text related data blocks are being aged out of cache. You can either increase the db_cache_size init
parmater or try to keep the text tables and index tables blocks in cache using ALTER TABLE commands.
If your app is doing NON-database activity, then chances are your application is taking up much of the machine's physical memory such that OS is swapping ORACLE out of the memory. In which case, you may want to consider to add more memory to the machine or have ORACLE run on a separate machine by itself.

SQL Loader and Insert Into Performance Difference

Hello All,
Im in a situation to measure performance difference between SQL Loader and Insert into. Say there 10000 records in a flat file and I want to load it into a staging table.
I know that if I use PL/SQL UTL_FILE to do this job performance will degrade(dont ask me why im going for UTL_FILE instead of SQL Loader). But I dont know how much. Can anybody tell me the performance difference in % (like 20% will decrease) in case of 10000 records.
Thanks,
Kannan.

Kannan B wrote:
Do not confuse the topic, as I told im not going to use External tables. This post is to speak the performance difference between SQL Loader and Simple Insert Statement.I don't think people are confusing the topic.
External tables are a superior means of reading a file as it doesn't require any command line calls or external control files to be set up. All that is needed is a single external table definition created in a similar way to creating any other table (just with the additional external table information obviously). It also eliminates the need to have a 'staging' table on the database to load the data into as the data can just be queried as needed directly from the file, and if the file changes, so does the data seen through the external table automatically without the need to re-run any SQL*Loader process again.
Who told you not to use External Tables? Do they know what they are talking about? Can they give a valid reason why external tables are not to be used?
IMO, if you're considering SQL*Loader, you should be considering External tables as a better alternative.

Query Performance difference in two DB

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for