RE: dbms_space.space_usage and effectiveness of purge operations
- From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "mwf@xxxxxxxx" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>, "stalinsk@xxxxxxxxx" <stalinsk@xxxxxxxxx>, 'oracle-l' <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:29:46 +0000
Mark,
I read that as table order_line, column item_id, foreign key to products - and
therefore assumed it wasn't monotonic. The pattern I would expect, based on the
classic "popularity" profile of items (a few very popular, many quite popular,
and a long tail of less popular) would be that for one day a few leaf blocks
for the very popular items might become empty, a couple of leaf blocks for the
popular become empty, and a little more space gets freed in leaf blocks that
hold less popular items.
As a side effect of the way Oracle does 50/50 splits, I'd expect the index leaf
blocks of the very popular items to run at a fairly steady 50% utilisation most
of the time, though, which doesn't match the figures Stalin showed - so I'm a
little wary of assuming that the classic pattern fits this case.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
________________________________
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf
of Mark W. Farnham [mwf@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 05 November 2013 18:21
To: stalinsk@xxxxxxxxx; 'oracle-l'
Subject: RE: dbms_space.space_usage and effectiveness of purge operations
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:
