Re: SGA & shared pool size
- From: LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:30:07 +0200
Hi
We do use PX. Constantly around 32 to 64 slaves are used (depends on the
node). But not observing much sorting or hash join contention on the disks.
Thanks
--
LSC
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So I take it you are not using PX on this database (doesn't seem that
> big if you have just 6GB PGA) -- you are running stuff serial and
> relying on the buffer cache for read performance?
>
> Given a large enough database and system with enough disk/channel
> bandwidth it may make more sense to make large dimensions PARALLEL.
>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:59 AM, LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have 6GB PGA set. Before I check the system it was 3GB and had some
> > sorting contention but with 6GB I barely observe large value for
> multipass
> > system statistics, most is memory and some one pass.
> >
> > The large shared pool is because the problems I have observed, probably a
> > RAC bug.
> >
> > The large buffer cache is for the dimension tables, some of them has
> million
> > of rows and ncreasing :-S
>
> --
> Regards,
> Greg Rahn
> http://structureddata.org
>
Other related posts:
