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