Hi Ed,

Of course, I'd suggest that the application be enhanced to use bind variables 
appropriately! ;-)

In the interim, I would introduce a script such as 'keeper.sql' from the Ixora web 
site to keep all the reusable
material in the library cache so as to reduce the impact of the flushes. Once that is 
working as desired, I would
increase the flush frequency to an interval of say 1 hour or 30 minutes. The size of 
the library cache and thus shared
pool utilization will still grow over time, but more slowly. I would then reduce the 
shared pool size to approximately
the size that it grew to after 1 day of normal application usage. To then mitigate the 
risk of ORA-4031 errors I would
ensure that 'shared_pool_reserved_size' is allowed to default, but set 
'_shared_pool_reserved_min_alloc' to its minimum
value (which is 4000 or 5000, version dependent). An instance restart once a week 
would be good too if you can manage
that.

@   Regards,
@   Steve Adams
@   http://www.ixora.com.au/              -  For DBAs
@   http://www.secularislam.org/call.htm  -  For Muslims
@   http://www.christianity.net.au/       -  For all


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2001 19:09
To: Steve Adams; [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Hi Steve,

yes, you're absolutely right. I've inhereted that system. The
shared_pool_size = 750M. I believe it's HUGE and oversized. The application
code is mostly based on literal SQL. The miss rate on the shared pool is
normally about 15%-20% with periodical peaks up to 50%. But the previous DBA
insist that we shouldn't decrease the size of shared pool as the miss rate
will be much higher. He also setup periodical flushing every 3 hours (I
assume he did it in order to prevent ORA-4031).
If I undestand the things right, deacresing of shared_pool_size will
decrease load on shared pool latch _but_ contention on the library latches
will be higher because of higher parse rate. Is it correct and what's your
advice in my case?

Thanks in advance,
Ed


> Hi Ed,
>
> I would agree with the _kgl_latch_count change, but the _kgl_bucket_count
change seems unwarranted and extreme. Rather I
> suspect that the size of your library cache hash table rather reflects an
oversized shared pool, probably with some use
> of literal SQL.
>
> @   Regards,
> @   Steve Adams
> @   http://www.ixora.com.au/              -  For DBAs
> @   http://www.secularislam.org/call.htm  -  For Muslims
> @   http://www.christianity.net.au/       -  For all
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Shevtsov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 19 October 2001 18:02
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Steve Adams
> Subject: Re: distribution of the sleeps on the library cache latches
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> thanks for your reply. I'm thinking about twice increasing  number of
> library latches ( _kgl_latch_count = 23 ) in order to mitigate loading on
> them.
> Also I would like to set _kgl_bucket_count = 8 according to output of your
> script. Do you think it's a good idea in my case.
>
> NAME                          IMPACT SLEEP_RATE    HOLDING     LEVEL#
> ------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
> library cache              60333579.3      0.32%  172945238        5
> shared pool                19313269.2      1.40%     8265405         7
> cache buffers chains    1950080.11      0.00%       629411         1
> row cache objects       738401.912     0.04%    3369329          4
> session allocation         70758.0784     0.01%      144008          5
> cache buffer handles    56104.2222      0.01%       71913          3
> redo allocation            33494.1227      0.02%     215582           6
> cache buffers lru chain 12784.3859      0.00%    198869           3
> checkpoint queue latch10980.4325      0.00%      52259           7
> latch wait list               9976.33016      0.04%      24412           9
> redo writing                  4846.5256      0.01%      75484     5
>
> Regards,
> Ed
>

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Steve Adams
  INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

Reply via email to