FAQ
Has anyone noticed differences in CBO performance between 9.2.0.3 and
9.2.0.5?

I'm working on a data warehouse db on HP-UX (data warehouse) and I'm
finally getting to move it off of rule and on to CBO. I've run good stats
and performance has been much better on the test server. Still have to
get some additional proof for management, but we're on our way ...

However, we hit a memory leak bug, I'm installing patchset 9.2.0.5
right now and there have been lots of install issues. Reading through
docs as I was creating new tars, I came across a reference to decreased
CBO performance on 9.2.0.4 and 9.2.0.5 in forum discussions.

Is there any validity to these suggestions? I'd rather punt right now and
apply the one-off patch for the memory leak. Our major issue on the
data warehouse has been lots of db sequential file read waits and I see a
huge decrease in the number of waits when I switched to choose mode.
This shop apparently got bit by CBO once upon a time, and if I can't
demonstrate a big performance improvement, this little effort will be DOA.

tia ... Robyn
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Niall Litchfield wrote:

Well it may be restricting your database from using better execution
plans - in fact given proper care and attention for a few key cases it
almost certainly is.

It, if implemented properly and with the full set of required hints
(i'd expect to see ordered in there as well for example), can help
with plan stability if you don't want execution plans to be changed,
some (not me) see this as an advantage. I don't. i'm not smarter than
the CBO and I don't know what every table and its data distribution
looks like currently let alone what it will look like in 6 months
time.

On the other hand it is probably a sign that your developers have
thought about good execution plans - and that would be a first for me.

Finally, do you have reason to think its bad? do your end-users curse
the performance of the ERP system? in particular areas? then it might
(read probably) be and is certainly worth looking at in conjunction
with the vendor. If the performance is fine and the business is
running OK find something else to worry about dev/QA/live for example
:)


Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase