Re: optimizer_ ???
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Christian Antognini <Christian.Antognini@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:45:43 +0100
On 4/26/05, Christian Antognini <Christian.Antognini@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Niall
>=20
> >Ah yes, indeed I have just such an example in my recent blog on oic
> >and oica (it was oica that had a similar effect for us) :) The
> >original question though was after an example of improved performance
> >rather than changed plans
>=20
> Mhmm... I don't understand... if the execution plan doesn't change, how t=
o get better performance?
That's because I wasn't clear:)=20
There are plenty of examples on the net that say in effect
1. determine execution plan
2. change oic, or oica, or both at the same time.=20
3. see - plans have changed.=20
they *don't* say
4. see - performance improved by x%.=20
showing me that if you change a parameter the plan will change tells
me very little about performance - it does tell me about a bit about
behaviour, showing me response time does and - so far as I can tell -
there aren't any examples of improved response time from setting these
parameters. Its as if the tuning goal has become 'favour nested loops'
rather than 'impove end-user experience'.
--=20
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- References:
- Re: optimizer_ ???
- From: Christian Antognini
Other related posts:
- » optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » RE: optimizer_ ???
- » Re: optimizer_ ???
- Re: optimizer_ ???
- From: Christian Antognini