Vivek and list,

I don't think any reasonable person will be able to
say with a high-level of certainty whether the values
that you have suggested, are optimal for your
environment. The answer is a huge - IT DEPENDS.

Having said that, here are some things you may want to
take into consideration:

1) From a functionality perspective
OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING and OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ
were meant to do the same thing. It just happened to
end up as 2 different parameters with 2 different code
paths, which pretty much do the same(similar) thing.
So usually, it is enought to set either one or the
other, although setting both in my experience has
generated no harm.

So, if you want to optimizer to show bias towards
index scans, then setting OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING to a
high value (90 or higher) will achieve that. Right now
your value of 50, tells the optimizer that only 50% of
the time, will it find index blocks in the DB buffer
cache. This will affect the optimizer's decision
making.

Tim Gorman has a very simple formula to calculate the
appropriate value on your system for
OPTIMZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ, stated in his paper
"Searching for intelligence in the Oracle Optimizer"
(or something to that effect) on his site
http://www.evdbt.com. It basically calculates a ratio
of the average time for db file sequential read/db
file scattered read from v$system_event, for your
system.

On a related topic, I think it is relevant to mention
here that to carte-blanche curtail full-table-scans,
may not work to the long-term benefit of your
applications. However, I will assume here that you are
aware of the core point - "amount of logical I/O" to
be the most important (if not only) determinant when
deciding whether FTS is better than index scans.

2) John Kanagaraj did some work and testing to
determine that setting OPTIMIZER_MAX_PERMUTATIONS to a
low value (2000 if I remember right), has a positive
impact on the plans that is generated, especially in
an Oracle Apps environment. You should check it out.

3) Julian Dyke and Steve Adams have performed some
good tests and research on OPTIMIZER_DYNAMIC_SAMPLING.
But, I think the jury is still out on what the optimal
value for this might be. I guess 4 is good enough.
But, realize that this parameter is relevant when you
have "partial statistics" in your schema. Otherwise, I
don't think there is any impact of this parameter.

Final notes:
------------
1) All of these parameters can be set at the session
level. I would urge you to perform extensive tests
before making global init.ora changes.

2) At the end of the day, you should ask yourself, why
you are embarking on this effort of changing these
values. If you have enough "trace data" to warrant
these changes, then by all means. Otherwise, you may
be setting yourself up for surprises in the future.


Cheers,

Gaja
--- VIVEK_SHARMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How Good/advisable are the following 4 parameters'
> Values in a Hybrid
> Application?
> 
> Are there any know ill-effects of the same?
> 
>  
> 
> Application - Banking (Hybrid)
> 
> Solaris 9 
> 
> Oracle 9.2 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  optimizer_max_permutations=8000
>  optimizer_index_cost_adj=10
>  optimizer_index_caching=50
>  optimizer_dynamic_sampling=4
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Some INFO :-
> 
> Database has 6000 Concurrent Users accessing 
> 
> We do ONLY INDEX Scans with exceptional FTS .
> 
> FTS if present occur only on SMALL Tables (a few
> Hundred Rows)
> 
> FTS if unchecked greatly harm our performance
> 
> Stripe Unit Size 64K
> 
> Oracle Block Size 8K
> 
>  
> 
> Will Give any info required
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 


=====
Gaja Krishna Vaidyanatha
Principal Technical Product Manager, 
Application Performance Management, Veritas Corporation
E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Phone: (650)-527-3180
Website: http://www.veritas.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Gaja Krishna Vaidyanatha
  INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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