Re: v$object_usage: anyone have bad experience with it?
- From: zhu chao <zhuchao@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lex de Haan <lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:53:16 +0800
Hi Lex,
Actually CPU bottleneck has been solved temporiry . I noticed the
redundent index problem while I was doing the tuning job on that host.
Unique index can be dropped if it was created with a unique index
without specifying a unique constraint on the column.
And your words about the FK index at 9.2 is no longer accurate, as
note 223303.1 said. The document IS wrong in this case.
"This new locking behaviour is an expected behaviour for the Oracle
code. As only shared locks are involved, it does not prevent DML from
being issued against either the child or parent tables. It will
prevent operations that require an exclusive table level lock.
However, as it generally considered to be bad design to have an
application implementing exclusive table locks, the impact of the
change should be minimal."
And talk back to the redundent index problem. Remove the redundent
index not only released the space, but also reduce the overhead to
maintain the index, so speed up the transactions/reduce the redo size.
We have been knowing the v$object_usage for a long time since 9.2
is released, but personally I didn't drop index according to the
v$object_usage.
We have hundreds of database with xxxG/xT in size, if drop
redundent index according to v$object_usage is proven to be OK. This
can save us Terabytes of disk space, which can mean a lot of money.
THanks for your help.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:16:59 +0100, Lex de Haan
<lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> see comments in line ...
>
> Lex.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Kyte Seminar: http://www.naturaljoin.nl/events/seminars.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of zhu chao
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 10:52
> To: ORACLE-L
> Subject: v$object_usage: anyone have bad experience with it?
>
> Hi, all,
>
> We have a database which maxed its CPU capacity. and I did some SQL tuning
> /index creation. I happened to think some index should be useless and I
> enabled index monitoring for some index and they do showed used='NO' in
> v$object_usage. Later I enabled index monitoring in all the indexes for this
> user, and I see:
>
> SQL> select used,count(*) from v$object_usage group by used;
> USE COUNT(*)
> --- --------
> NO 160
> YES 108
>
> and these indexes used 36G space.
>
> LEX: Why do you care about storage, if you say you have a CPU problem?
>
> I plan to drop those indexes. But I am not sure whether there is bugs/issues
> with the v$object_usage that it does not report some used index, or under
> some circumstance, even SQL don't use the index , we have to keep these
> indexes. One possible is unique index. Unique index is not used to speedup
> SQL, but to enforce business logic.
>
> LEX: Indeed -- and if they are associated with UNIQUE or PK constraints,
> you'll find out, because you won't be able to drop them if the constraints
> are enabled...
>
> The other is for the FK related index. But we are running oracle
> 9.2.0.5 and I think it is no longer an issue.
>
> LEX: I think this is a misunderstanding -- there still is different locking
> behavior with and without indexes on your foreign keys. Just less difference
> than before. This is explained very well in the Concepts manual.
>
> Can someone share your experience/opinion on this?
>
> LEX: I still don't understand how you hope to resolve the perceived CPU
> problem by dropping indexes?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Regards
> Zhu Chao
> www.cnoug.org
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Regards
Zhu Chao
www.cnoug.org
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
