If you are having problems with one report in particular, then it's a good idea to get to understand the report and the SQL that is involved. While SGA adjustments may help, in the case of a single report, I'd be looking at execution paths and PGA first - if there is a lot of sorting (in PGA) or joining (largely in PGA), remembering that PGA uses TEMP tablespace effectively like a kind of swap space may help. And understanding the path should help decide whether indexes are used [appropriately]. As long as you aren't forced into swapping or paging, from a purely reporting stand point an oversized SGA should not hurt much. (It might hurt transactional operations - used to be a problem, but not so much any more.) SO I would put the SGA issue as a lower priority for investigation. On the other hand, if you experience performance issues across the board or in a lot of different areas, then I'd be looking at 'common' things such as SGA as a higher priority. Either way, David pointed you to Tanel's excellent script. /Hans On 29/08/2012 11:10 AM, Christopher.Taylor2@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Guys/Gals, > As a few of you know I have taken a new job and one of the applications I'm > responsible for has multiple dev and qa environments and one prod > environment. (10.2.0.4 RAC - 3 nodes in QA/Prod, 2 nodes in Dev) > > We have a federal report that has started performing poorly in production and > I have a QA environment with less volume where it returns reasonably well. > > One of the challenges I'm having is that the SGA in Prod is 40 GB, and PGA = > 5GB. Dev GB/5GB, QA@GB/1 GB (PGA much different). (Challenges include > coming up to speed at breakneck pace on environments, environment usage, > statistics methodology (there isn't one), indexing methodology (there isn't > one)...) > > I think Jonathan Lewis or someone posted recently about large SGA sizes and > PGA sizes - that having gobs of memory available doesn't *necessarily* mean > automatically setting your databases up to use that large amount of memory > (or perhaps I was dreaming). > > I'm wondering if I should be much concerned about the SGA sizes currently and > come back to them later, or if I should be looking at them in relation to > query performance - that perhaps the SGAs are "oversized" or if that is an > idiotic concept to begin with. I'm going to research it further but wanted > to throw that out there. > > Chris Taylor > > > > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l