11g

randolf.geist's picture

Forced Cursor Sharing And Virtual Columns

So you have that application that cannot be changed but makes use of some weird expressions that screw up the cardinality estimates of the optimizer.

Consider this simple example:

create table t as select rownum as id , case when mod(rownum, 100000) = 0 then 'y' else 'n' end as flag , rpad('x', 100) as filler from dual connect by level <= 1000000 ; exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(null, 't', method_opt => 'for all columns size 1 for columns flag size 2', estimate_percent => 30) select flag, count(*) from t group by flag; explain plan for select count(*) from t where flag = 'y' ; set linesize 200 tab off pagesize 0 select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
rshamsud's picture

All about RAC and MTU with a video

Let’s first discuss how RAC traffic works before continuing. Environment for the discussion is: 2 node cluster with 8K database block size, UDP protocol is used for cache fusion. (BTW, UDP and RDS protocols are supported in UNIX platform; whereas Windows uses TCP protocol).

UDP protocol, fragmentation, and assembly

UDP Protocol is an higher level protocol stack, and it is implemented over IP Protocol ( UDP/IP). Cache Fusion uses UDP protocol to send packets over the wire (Exadata uses RDS protocol though).

randolf.geist's picture

Nested Loop Join Costing

The basic formula for calculating the costs of a Nested Loop Join is pretty straightforward and has been described and published several times.

In principle it is the cost of acquiring the driving row source plus the cost of acquiring the inner row source of the Nested Loop as many times as the driving row source dictates via the cardinality of the driving row source.

Cost (outer rowsource) + Cost (inner rowsource) * Card (outer rowsource)

Obviously there are cases where Oracle has introduced refinements to the above formula where this is no longer true. Here is one of these cases that is probably not uncommon.

rshamsud's picture

_gc_fusion_compression

We know that database blocks are transferred between the nodes through the interconnect, aka cache fusion traffic. Common misconception is that packet transfer size is always database block size for block transfer (Of course, messages are smaller in size). That’s not entirely true. There is an optimization in the cache fusion code to reduce the packet size (and so reduces the bits transferred over the private network). Don’t confuse this note with Jumbo frames and MTU size, this note is independent of MTU setting.

rshamsud's picture

gc buffer busy acquire vs release

Last week (March 2012), I was conducting Advanced RAC Training online. During the class, I was recreating a ‘gc buffer busy’ waits to explain the concepts and methods to troubleshoot the issue.

Definitions

Let’s define these events first. Event ‘gc buffer busy’ event means that a session is trying to access a buffer,but there is an open request for Global cache lock for that block already, and so, the session must wait for the GC lock request to complete before proceeding. This wait is instrumented as ‘gc buffer busy’ event.

From 11g onwards, this wait event is split in to ‘gc buffer busy acquire’ and ‘gc buffer busy release’. An attendee asked me to show the differentiation between these two wait events. Fortunately, we had a problem with LGWR writes and we were able to inspect the waits with much clarity during the class.

alexgorbachev's picture

Announcement: Release 1.1.2 of MySQL Plug-in for Oracle Enterprise Manager 10g/11g

This release is just a quick bug fix release of an older 1.1.1 version of the plug-in. It’s long overdue but I’ve managed to fix “” problem only couple weeks ago. I’ve distributed the new version to the folks who have reached out to me by email of via blog reporting the issue in the [...]

rshamsud's picture

Temporary tablespaces in RAC

Temporary tablespaces are shared objects and they are associated to an user or whole database (using default temporary tablespace). So, in RAC, temporary tablespaces are shared between the instances. Many temporary tablespaces can be created in a database, but all of those temporary tablespaces are shared between the instances. Hence, temporary tablespaces must be allocated in shared storage or ASM. We will explore the space allocation in temporary tablespace in RAC, in this blog entry.

In contrast, UNDO tablespaces are owned by an instance and all transactions from that instance is exclusively allocated in that UNDO tablespace. Remember that other instances can read blocks from remote undo tablespace, and so, undo tablespaces also must be allocated from shared storage or ASM.

Space allocation in TEMP tablespace

randolf.geist's picture

Autotrace Polluting The Shared Pool?

Introduction

Another random note that I made during the sessions attended at OOW was about the SQL*Plus AUTOTRACE feature. As you're hopefully already aware of this feature has some significant shortcomings, the most obvious being that it doesn't pull the actual execution plan from the Shared Pool after executing the statement but simply runs an EXPLAIN PLAN on the SQL text which might produce an execution plan that is different from the actual one for various reasons.

Now the claim was made that in addition to these shortcomings the plan generated by the AUTOTRACE feature will stay in the Shared Pool and is eligible for sharing, which would mean that other statement executions could be affected by a potentially bad execution plan generated via AUTOTRACE rather then getting re-optimized on their own.

rshamsud's picture

SCN – What, why, and how?

In this blog entry, we will explore the wonderful world of SCNs and how Oracle database uses SCN internally. We will also explore few new bugs and clarify few misconceptions about SCN itself.

What is SCN?

SCN (System Change Number) is a primary mechanism to maintain data consistency in Oracle database. SCN is used primarily in the following areas, of course, this is not a complete list:

randolf.geist's picture

Incremental Partition Statistics Review

Introduction

Here is a summary of the findings while evaluating Incremental Partition Statistics that have been introduced in Oracle 11g.

The most important point to understand is that Incremental Partition Statistics are not "cost-free", so anyone who is telling you that you can gather statistics on the lowest level (partition or sub-partition in case of composite partitioning) without any noticeable overhead in comparison to non-incremental statistics (on the lowest level) is not telling you the truth.

Although this might be obvious I've already personally heard someone making such claims so it's probably worth to mention.

In principle you need to test on your individual system whether the overhead that is added to each statistics update on the lowest level outweighs the overhead of actually gathering statistics on higher levels, of course in particular on global level.

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Syndicate content