RE: Implement Parallel Processing on DB Warehouse

  • From: "Freeman, Donald" <dofreeman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:17:55 -0500

I have two dual 2.4G Xeon processors (4 cpus). This is what I got as the =
results of your
suggested query. I'm not too surprised because I don't know what I'm =
looking at yet! My next step will=20
probably be to take one real world query and try and optimize that.=20

---------------------------------------------------------------- =
--------------------
queries parallelized                                                     =
           7
DML statements parallelized                                              =
           0
DDL statements parallelized                                              =
           0
DFO trees parallelized                                                   =
           7
Parallel operations not downgraded                                       =
           7
Parallel operations downgraded to serial                                 =
           0
Parallel operations downgraded 75 to 99 pct                              =
           0
Parallel operations downgraded 50 to 75 pct                              =
           0
Parallel operations downgraded 25 to 50 pct                              =
           0
Parallel operations downgraded 1 to 25 pct                               =
           0


-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Kanagaraj
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:49 PM
To: 'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Implement Parallel Processing on DB Warehouse


Don,

As Jonathan pointed out, AUTOTRACE cannot be relied upon. Rather, I =
would
look at V$SESSTAT from another session for the identified SID - this
provides some additional details, especially about PQ. Specifically, =
look
for Statistics (join V$STATNAME) 'where upper(name) like '%PARALLEL%'' - =
you
will be gently surprised s'all I can say :) You also did not mention the
number of CPUs you have (although I note that you have set
parallel_threads_per_cpu). Be aware that although you did not set
LARGE_POOL, this will automatically be derived.

And I have to disagree with Mladen here on the flushing bit - since this =
is
a DW, I wouldn't mind flushing the shared pool, as I can understand why =
you
did it. Of course, he did point out the syntax error!=20

PQ (in a controlled fashion) can be a boon in DWs, but I have seen it =
really
bite in an OLTP environment.
John Kanagaraj
DB Soft Inc
Phone: 408-970-7002 (W)

Listen to great, commercial-free christian music 24x7x365 at
http://www.klove.com

** The opinions and facts contained in this message are entirely mine =
and do
not reflect those of my employer or customers **


>-----Original Message-----
>From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
>[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Freeman, Donald
>Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:18 PM
>To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Implement Parallel Processing on DB Warehouse
----------------------------------------------------------------
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: