RE: dbms_space.space_usage and effectiveness of purge operations
- From: "Mark W. Farnham" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <stalinsk@xxxxxxxxx>, "'oracle-l'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:21:23 -0500
I don't quite understand your abbreviations.
One thing I see immediately that seems incorrect is your expectation that
leaf block deletions would be "even" when you are doing a time based purge
on an index that is highly correlated with time. (order_line_item_id
sequence was monotonically increasing last time I looked, if you're talking
E-biz.) Also, that should be the exact opposite of an obstacle: entire leaf
blocks should free nearly together because of that correlation. Remember
that leaf blocks of a regular index are going to be storing index column set
values that are very near to each other, sort of like a page of a telephone
book if the index were on lastname, firstname.
What, exactly, is your goal?
mwf
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stalin
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:35 PM
To: oracle-l
Subject: dbms_space.space_usage and effectiveness of purge operations
All,
I'm Trying to analyze the need to coalesce indexes after purge operations.
Since our purge operations deletes rows from tables that are older than 6
months, we expect to see clean-up of leaf blocks evenly, thereby making the
blocks candidate for new inserts.
As an example, i used dbms_space.space_usage package to study the output.
This is run on a fk index on order_line_item_id sequence based, where purge
operation are performed everyday to delete rows beyond 6 months.
Note: FSn are all blocks.
Before Coalesce
UNF = 1224, FS4 = 0, FS3=0, FS2=9525, FS1=0, FULL=149334
With Coalesce run on the same index.
UNF = 1208, FS4 = 0, FS3=0, FS2=73548, FS1=0, FULL=85327
Questions :
1. Why does after coalesce FS2 free blocks increased? From the nature of the
deletes we do, i would have expected blocks to join the freelist as and when
they get empty for future inserts. That way, coalesce can be completely
avoided.
2. Looking at post coalesce numbers, does this mean we have 73548 blocks
available in freelist for future inserts.
3. Does this mean we ought to coalesce these type of indexes cause almost
50% of the blocks were released to FS2 bucket.
Note: The index is housed in ASSM tablespace with auto allocate.
--
Thanks,
Stalin
Other related posts:
