Again: needed time is 1.76 20 jobs require 1.76 * 20
Divided on 4 cpu each cpu will take 1.76 * 20 /4 = 8.8 sec This is the average elapsed time for any job (20 concurrent) on your system. regards, Waleed -----Original Message----- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: 4/19/02 12:23 AM Vivek's feedback: (on your questions) Richard, I agree that over time this incident has been tested with various scenarios that it is getting confusing. However, the objective that we started with is still the same. Query: I have a query that does a select from 1 table (uses first_rows and index hint). This index is the one that gives us the best possible time with least possible consistent gets. The IN clause contain 50 individual literals. The query for 1 user to execute takes 1.67 seconds. This includes the time it also takes to display the results on the client. In our case the sql plus window on the database server. I had generated the trace file and did a TKPROF on the trace file. I am attaching the results of the trace file for your perusal. I had tried to _spin_count as default and various values from 4 to 40000. The most optimal response time was obtained at _spin_count of 10000. This is the value currently set. This was also recommended by Oracle as the CPU seems to be doing something (I believe due to Oracle) and is clearly visible as the user load is increased. To provide more clarity, I am attaching a word document that lists the trace status of parse, execute and fetch for 1 and 20 simultaneous users. Please note that while for 1 user the total elapsed time is very close the fetch time, for 20 concurrent users, the disparity is high. This disparity increases more than linearly as the stress is increased. I hope this helps. You are correct in your observation that Oracle does not show a wait in the v$session_wait and the CPU idle time is 0%, usage 98% user, 2% kernel. This can be observed clearly for as small as 100 concurrent users. There is no data functions or conversion on any of the columns both in the select and in the where clause. I want to be careful here. As I keep reducing the number of literals in the IN clause, the query works faster. However, the degradation factor (response time for 20 simultaneous queries to response time of 1 query) is the same hovering around 1 to 3.6. This degradation factor becomes very large as the stress in increased. Our first scenario was an IN clause with 800 literals. Then we had reduced it to 200. Then to 100. Now we are at 50. However, since our application response is for 800, now we have that many simultaneous queries accessing the database. This contributes to increased load and the overall degradation factor is still the high level. I will try the truss and send you the observation soon. Thanks in advance. Vivek Vijayaraghavan _____ 1 USER: -------- call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Parse 1 0.03 0.02 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 4 1.73 1.74 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.76 1.76 0 334 0 31 20 Simultaneous Users: ---------------------- USER #1: ------- 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 4 1.91 6.48 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.91 6.48 0 334 0 31 USER #2: ------- call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Parse 1 0.01 0.00 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 4 1.80 9.02 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.81 9.02 0 334 0 31 USER #3: -------- call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Parse 1 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 4 1.86 9.81 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.87 9.82 0 334 0 31 USER #4: ------- 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 4 1.88 7.71 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.88 7.71 0 334 0 31 USER #5: ------- 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 4 1.84 7.53 0 334 0 31 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 6 1.84 7.53 0 334 0 31 ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:48 PM I think you are running into the stampeding herd phenomenon. I'm suspicous of the low value for the spin count. It seems timid. Could you truss one of the shadow processes with the timing option and post the output? Just enough to identify the repeating pattern. Also, please run the truss in dedicated server mode to get a complete picture. One you have the truss of the problem, try comenting out the entry for _spin_count in the init.ora and reruning your tests. I'm not reading email during the day while I'm at IOUG but hopefully I'll see your post after I return to my hotel. One more thing, thanks for posting your problem with such clarity and supporting detail. Tony Aponte -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Khedr, Waleed 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).
