RE: Method R and CPU Time
- From: "Cary Millsap" <cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:25:08 -0500
I wouldn't consider 8x8KB reads to be very large either. The times when =
I've
encountered a big double-counting problem (for example, e=3D10, c=3D8,
sum(ela)=3D8) have been for reads with p3=3D64 or p3=3D128 blocks--stuff =
like
that...
Can you show me the trace data for a single FETCH call (that is, the =
FETCH
#k line itself and all the WAIT #k lines that precede that FETCH line)?
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 6/22 Pittsburgh, 7/20 Cleveland, 8/10 =
Boston
- SQL Optimization 101: 5/24 San Diego, 6/14 Chicago, 6/28 Denver
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of MacGregor, Ian A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 8:08 PM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
I have re-read Chaper 7 especially pg 153-154, a section entitled, "CPU
Consumption Double-Counting". I expected the double counting to be
negligible. The text does say USUALLY negligible. Thanks also for the
multi-block read information. I did not notice this discrepancy on =
queries
dominated by single-block read events. The multi-block reads in the
example are not large, each is 8, 8k blocks or less, with very few or =
less.
I don't consider these to be large reads.=20
Ian =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Millsap [mailto:cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxx]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:58 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
Ian,
Some timed events like "SQL*Net message from client" (and "...to client" =
=3D
and several others) are not double-counted within any "e" value. In the =
=3D
book, I call these "between-call events". Other events that represent =
work =3D
taking place within the context of a dbcall (which I call "within-call
events") /are/ included within an "e" value.
But there is potential for significant double-counting between "ela" and =
=3D
"c"
values. I don't have a copy of the book handy (Optimizing Oracle
Performance), but it's described in detail there (Chapter 7, I think). =
=3D The
problem will occur most prominently when your application does large
multi-block reads. Basically, the issue is that the time than an I/O =3D
syscall spends consuming CPU is double-counted both in "c" for the =
dbcall
and =3D "ela"
for the read. This breaks the relationship e \approx c + \Sum ela. The
larger the I/O size, the bigger the breakage.=3D20
Pictures in the book.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 6/22 Pittsburgh, 7/20 Cleveland, 8/10 =3D =
Boston
- SQL Optimization 101: 5/24 San Diego, 6/14 Chicago, 6/28 Denver
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of MacGregor, Ian A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:48 PM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
Thank you very much for responding. I decided to do away with tkprof =
=3D and
calculate the nubers myself. I chose another example where the =3D =
statement
is taking a longer time to run
Here is what I got from using the tkprof method
RUN_DATE TRACE_ID EVENT =3D
WAITS
WAIT_SECS ELAPSED_SECS CPU_SECS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
=3D
---
------------------------------------
26-JUN-2004 03:07 nlco_ora_2991 db file sequential read =
=3D
1165
4.9 170.87 142.1
26-JUN-2004 03:07 db file scattered read =
=3D
6756
147.41 170.87 142.1
26-JUN-2004 03:07 SQL*Net message from client =
=3D
550
1.46 170.87 142.1
*************** =3D
----------
----------
sum =
=3D
8471
153.77
And here are the waits fropm the raw trace file from the above
EVENT SUM(MICROSECONDS)/1000000
------------------------------ -------------------------
SQL*Net message from client 1.469555
SQL*Net message to client .002067
db file scattered read 147.412026
db file sequential read 4.906271
latch free .000009
-------------------------
sum 153.789928
And here are the elapsed tike and CPU details from the raw trace file
OPERA CPU_TIME ELAPSED_TIME
----- ---------- ------------
EXEC .03 .033659
FETCH 142.07 170.824816
PARSE 0 .013718
---------- ------------
sum 142.1 170.872193
All cursors are at dep=3D3D0, the statement had already been parsed =
before =3D
this run.=3D20
SQL> select distinct misses from raw_ops_external;
MISSES
----------
0
grep -i dep nlco_ora_2991.trc | wc
604 1428 44874
grep -i dep=3D3D0 nlco_ora_2991.trc | wc
604 1428 44874
grep -i dep=3D3D1 nlco_ora_2991.trc | wc
0 0 0
What I did was to "grep -I wait" and write the results to a file. I =
=3D
then again used the external table feature and used sum and compute to =
=3D
produce the report. I then did the same thing with the parse, exec, and
fetch lines. The report agrees favorably with the tkprof output.=3D20
Here are the external table definitions
SQL> describe raw_waits_external
Name Null? Type
----------------------------------------- --------
----------------------------
TRACE_ID VARCHAR2(15)
EVENT VARCHAR2(30)
MICROSECONDS NUMBER(9)
P1 NUMBER(15)
P2 NUMBER(10)
P3 NUMBER(2)=3D20
SQL> describe raw_ops_external
Name Null? Type
----------------------------------------- --------
----------------------------
TRACE_ID VARCHAR2(15)
OPERATION VARCHAR2(5)
CPU NUMBER(10)
ELAPSED NUMBER(10)
PHYSICAL_R NUMBER(6)
CONSISTENT_R NUMBER(6)
CURRENT_R NUMBER(6)
MISSES NUMBER(2)
ROW_COUNT NUMBER(3)
DEPTH NUMBER(2)
OPT_GOAL NUMBER(2)
TIM NUMBER(15)
Perhaps I'm making the same mistake as tkprof as our figures agree. =3D
Perhaps I have to throw out some of the lines from the trace files =
despite
all depths being =3D3D 0 and there being no library cache misses. Any =
=3D
suggestion as to where the double-counting is occuring.
I'm ready to change the premise that one cannot always separate time =3D =
spent
on CPU and time spent waiting for file I/O via method R, because the
overlap between the two may be significant not incidental to an =3D =
assertion.
One thing I did not mention is that the trace was done at level 12.
Ian MacGregor
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Millsap [mailto:cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxx]=3D20
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:23 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
Tkprof double-counts /horribly/. It begins with how it handles the =3D3D
so-called "idle events."
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 6/22 Pittsburgh, 7/20 Cleveland, 8/10 =3D3D =
=3D
Boston
- SQL Optimization 101: 5/24 San Diego, 6/14 Chicago, 6/28 Denver
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D3D
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of MacGregor, Ian A.
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 2:31 PM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
Thanks, these figures are from tkprof on a 9.2.0.4 database. I used =
=3D =3D3D
grep to extract the totals for all non-recursive SQL statements and then =
=3D
=3D3D turned
that output into an external table. I did the same thing with the =
=3D3D
waits.
I had earlier checked the figures tkprof provides vs. the raw trace file =
=3D
=3D3D for the same statement run once and found they agreed. I have not =
=3D
summed =3D3D the waits from the raw trace file upon which tkprof was =
run, but
the CPU =3D and elapsed times do agree between the raw trace file and =
the
tkprof output.
As CPU_SECS + Wait_SECS > 1.5 * Elapsed_SECS, it appears the =3D3D
double-counting is not always incidental, but can be significant when =
=3D
there are db file =3D3D I/O waits involved. If this is true, can one =
really
use method R to =3D3D evaluate how a hardware upgrade will affect =
performance.
Remember, the figures are from tkprof which Cary states can get things
wrong, and the wait times totals have not been confirmed as accurate =
=3D3D =3D
from the raw trace data; hence, the question is premature. Has anyone =
had
difficulty separating time spent waiting for file i/o vs. CPU time?
Ian MacGregor
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
=3D3D20
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Lewis [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]=3D3D20
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 3:03 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Method R and CPU Time
Notes in-line.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
Optimising Oracle Seminar - schedule updated May 1st
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: Method R and CPU Time
The figures represent totals from running the same statement 10 =3D3D =
=3D
different times with different bind variables, that is on average the
elapsed time =3D =3D3D is
1.429 seconds per statement execution. Also because the report is =
=3D3D =3D
based on 10 runs of a statement any discrepancies in the figuring of e, =
ela,
=3D =3D3D or c are magnified.
[jpl] Not necessarily, though you may know it to be true in your case.
[jpl] In the general case, 10 runs would be more likely to flatten out
anomalies [jpl] minimise descrepancies.
The statements ran starting at 12:05 PM on Jun 25. Statspack from noon =
=3D
=3D3D to
12:15 reported 630 seconds of CPU time. Again there are four CPU's, =
=3D =3D3D
the machine was not overloaded.
My original question had to do as to why "sum(ela)" + "c" was over 1.5
times as high as "e", and whether for a statement running on a single =
=3D =3D3D
CPU one needed to divide the reported CPU time by the number of =
processors =3D
=3D3D on the machine just as one would when looking at total CPU time =
across
the
entire machine. If I do that, then ela + c < e, but the error is much =
=3D
=3D3D
much
less.
[jpl] Without knowing what tools you are using to produce [jpl] the =3D
numbers, and where they are coming from, and what [jpl] actually is
happening in =3D the code, it is not possible to give [jpl] a guaranteed
answer to that =3D question.
But if you are just [jpl] reading v$mystat and v$session_event for the
session, and [jpl] parts of the query are parallelised, you need to know
that [jpl] PX slave stats are summed back to the QC, but PX slave [jpl]
waits are not. So any attempt to add ela to c to get [jpl] elapsed time
would be misguided.
[jpl] On the other hand, you didn't mention any PX Deq wait [jpl] time, =
=3D
and I assumed from the reference to ela and c that [jpl] you are =
processing
=3D a
10046 trace file - so the simple answer [jpl] to your original question =
=3D is
no - you don't need to divide [jpl] the c figure by the number of
processors.
There are things outside of disk waits and CPU times which need to be
researched. Such as why submit 10 different requests for 10 different
signals. The requests themselves union a daily partioned table with
indexes and a non-indexed live table holding a single calendar days =
=3D3D =3D
worth of data partitioned every 10 minutes. The non-indexed table is =
the
one reporting the scattered read waits. The table is not indexed as it =
=3D3D
=3D needs to collect signal data in real time and is employing direct =
mode
inserts =3D =3D3D via OCI. Exactly how the partition sizes were =
decided, I
don't know. =3D =3D3D Partition pruning is successful.
No one is complaining about the above response time, but it can vary =
=3D3D
during the day due to machine load, and how much of the data is in =3D =
cache,
at =3D3D times reaching unacceptable levels. Faster hardware is being =
=3D
considered and =3D3D I'm trying to figure how much if any that would =
help by
=3D figuring how much =3D3D time is actually spent on CPU for these =
queries vs.
waits for physical I/O.
Ian MacGregor
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
