RE: AWR interpretation
- From: "Storey, Robert (DCSO)" <RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Andy Klock <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:12:21 +0000
No, its not portioned.
I'm going to change the buffer size to reduce the commits and David referenced
doing the import with the db in noarchive mode. I could do the import, then
configure the setup and once I've verified that all is well, place the db in
archivelog mode before going live on it.
-----Original Message-----
From: andyklock@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:andyklock@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Klock
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Storey, Robert (DCSO)
Cc: Andrew Kerber; David Barbour; Oracle L
Subject: Re: AWR interpretation
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Storey, Robert (DCSO)
<RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have to check but I'm pretty sure one table has 3400 records that have lob
> (pictures) in them.
> From: Andrew Kerber [mailto:andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: David Barbour
> Cc: Storey, Robert (DCSO); Oracle L
> Subject: Re: AWR interpretation
>
>
> One other thing, if you have lob's in your data, you can pretty much kiss
> your performance goodby. I am sure someone here can identify why, I never
> really tried to track it down, but basically lob's take about 10 times longer
> to deal with than any other item.
>
Tables that have LOBs can't do array inserts, so it's a one row at a time sort
of thing. Plus, the rows tend to be bigger and touch lots of blocks.
You mentioned parallizing the import, this can possibly be done if the
46 million row table is partitioned. Otherwise, the export for that table can
be split up with QUERY (exp help=y,
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96652/ch01.htm). I have no
idea what the OEM database control export interface looks like, so I can't
offer any guidance there. But I would first test to see if the reduction of
COMMITs is all that is needed.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
