RE: Sun T2000
- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Alexander Fatkulin" <afatkulin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:52:39 -0700
Interesting that the fetch count is different. Since there was no PIO,
the Proliant would likely get better performance without indirect data
buffers BTW.
I'd like to see somehting that runs a bit longer such as JL Computing
Index
http://www.miraclebenelux.nl/jloci.html I'd also like to have
measurements from my silly little benchmark
(http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/oracle-on-opteron-with-lin
ux-the-numa-angle-part-iii/)
any chance for that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Fatkulin [mailto:afatkulin@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 9:02 PM
To: Kevin Closson
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sun T2000
Kevin,
thanks for the question. There were no PIO involved.
Here is what I see:
create table t as
select mod(level, 10) m10,
mod(level, 25) m25,
mod(level, 50) m50,
level l
from dual
connect by level <= 500000;
Proliant results:
select m10, m25, m50, sum(l), count(*), min(l), max(l), avg(l)
from t
group by m10, m25, m50
call count cpu elapsed disk query current
rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0
0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0
Fetch 5 0.69 0.67 0 649 0
50
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
----------
total 7 0.69 0.67 0 650 0
50
T2000 results:
select m10, m25, m50, sum(l), count(*), min(l), max(l), avg(l)
from t
group by m10, m25, m50
call count cpu elapsed disk query current
rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
0
Fetch 2 4.45 4.34 0 649 0
50
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
----------
total 4 4.45 4.34 0 649 0
50
Both DB were created with a 16K blocksize. And mind that - Proliant
were running with use_indirect_data_buffers=true.
On 3/25/07, Kevin Closson <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> of the T2000 server
> vs Proliant DL380 G3 (based on 3Ghz Xeons).
>
> One Niagara core were approximately 7 to 8 times slower than single
> Xeon CPU in batch task (huge sorts/aggregates) -
>
> ...I'm not syaing you didn't see this result, but that seem slower
than
> expected. To what degree was I/O a factor?
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Alexander Fatkulin
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
