Hi,
while we are on this topic, I would to ask you all about a system I was
working on recently.
The main problem was that approx. 64 threads were almost continuously doing
full table scans on a small table of 800 rows (the developers insisted this
was necessary). This table was in 1 or 2 blocks and was having a huge amount
of "cache buffers chains" latching.
When we forced the sql to use the index, the latching moved to the index.
I did all the usual tricks like spreading the table out across a lot more
blocks , increase the spin count etc. with limited success.
My view was that with so much activity going on on this small table, the
latching would never be fully eliminated, and it was poorly designed code.
I just want to check that everyone agrees with me, or would you expect to be
able to eliminate the waits even under these conditions?
Thanks for your advice,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
Manning
Sent: 28 February 2002 17:14
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
_db_block_hash_buckets
[Mogens Nørgaard]
> Amen. Contention for cache buffers chains means too much logical IO,
> ie. find and exterminate heavy SQL.
I don't see why the heavy SQL would result in the chain having 66 buffer
heads in it, though, or why the sleep count would be so skewed.
And my core question is still whether the number of buckets being
non-prime is "normal" or not - it seems awfully wrong to me.
That there's a lot of contention *is* a factor of the SQL, but the
fact that it's so skewed to only a few chains is what worries me more.
Once I have the contention down to a particular latch, but that latch
protects a buffer chain with 66 buffer heads in it, how can I find out
which ones of the 66 are generating the most attempts at that latch?
Tell ya what - can I get a few ppl to run this query? It tells the
min/max/avg for the number of buffers associated with each chain and if
my numbers are high I can at least have a chance of spreading out the
buffers over more chains (by upping the number of latches from 4k to 16k,
32, whatever) - it won't drop the actual IO any, of course, but since
I don't have a hard fix on which buffers of the 66 are really the source
of my contention, I'm not sure where to go from here.
SELECT min(buffers_per), max(buffers_per),
avg(buffers_per), sum(buffers_per)
FROM (
SELECT count(*) buffers_per, hladdr
FROM x$bh b, all_objects o, v$latch_children v
WHERE
b.HLADDR=v.addr
AND b.obj=o.object_id
AND v.name LIKE '%cache buffers %'
GROUP BY hladdr
)
My results:
min = 39
max = 119
avg = 55.06
sum = 225555
If this shows to be about the same in other (well-tuned) Oracle DB's, then
I won't worry as much about the number of buffers in each chain and would
then focus on trying to isolate the specific buffers, then the source SQL
causing the problem, etc.
Given my previous sql trace analyses, I have a good idea what the problem
SQL statement is, but it's a bit of a necessary evil right now (a join
of a table (260k rows) and a materialized view (2k rows), 6 conditions
in there where, and it gets executed a ton, probably on the order of 10x
a second at peak) - all indexes that helped performance are created and
around already. :( But, ideally I'd like to be able to prove this is
the cause of the "hot buffers" before fixing anything.
Thanks, guys!!
James
--
James Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG Key fingerprint = B913 2FBD 14A9 CE18 B2B7 9C8E A0BF B026 EEBB F6E4
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: James Manning
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).
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: James McCann
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).
