esday, September 23, 2003 6:44
AM
Subject: Insert performance
Does anyone have any idea how to
improve performance for multiple inserts into a table that uses a sequence
generated primary key?
I have approximately 6 concurrent
inserts per second into this table whic
, 2003
11:10 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Insert performance
At 09:44 PM 9/22/2003, you wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how to
improve performance for multiple inserts into a table that uses a sequence
generated primary key?
Is the sequence cache set
, September 23, 2003
4:05 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Insert performance
I have already bumped
that up quite a bit as well, but I still get many waits.
Thanks,
Rick
Stephenson
Oracle
Database Administrator
Ovid
Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Does anyone have any idea how to improve performance for
multiple inserts into a table that uses a sequence generated primary key?
I have approximately 6 concurrent inserts per second into
this table which causes the primary key index to become a hot block. This
in turn causes "buffer
Rick,
I haven't tried this myself but you could consider a reverse key index (depending on
your version).
That way multiple inserts won't go to the same block.
However, (from Perf Tuning 101) you will incur much more IO than a normal index if you
do range scans, so you'd need to consider how
I am in the process of implementing partitioning on some existing tables. I
have been asked by management to evaluate the performance impacts of the
changes. I am aware of many of the performance advantages of partitioning:
partition pruning, partition-wise joins and parallel data loads. What I
My last set of test results is a little out of date,
but here's an idea to check.
Inserting single rows:
partitioned key insert HAD ca. 50% overhead
Array Inserts sorted by partition key to get lots
of adjacent rows in the same partition
virtually no overhead
Array inserts randomised
Way back in the days of Oracle 8.0.5 I did some performance testing of bulk
inserts/sqlldr of range partitioned tables v.s. non-partitioned tables. I
don't have the benchmarks on hand, but here's what I found. All tests were
done using the direct path inserts (sqlldr direct=true or /*+ APPEND */)
]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Partitoned Table Insert Performance
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 09:48:31 -0800
Way back in the days of Oracle 8.0.5 I did some performance testing of bulk
inserts/sqlldr of range partitioned tables v.s
performance is about 190 rows/second.
On database B, INSERT performance is over 500 rows/second.
I saw some cache buffers chains, buffer busy, and library cache
latch
waits on database A while the test was running, as well as redo
log
sync waits. The waits didn't seem
Greetings!
I am trying to diagnose a performance difference between two databases
running the same test. They are similarly configured (same SGA size,
etc.), and the servers are identical except for the number of CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about 190
!
I am trying to diagnose a performance difference between two
databases
running the same test. They are similarly configured (same SGA size,
etc.), and the servers are identical except for the number of CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about 190
running the same test. They are similarly configured (same SGA size,
etc.), and the servers are identical except for the number of CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about 190 rows/second.
On database B, INSERT performance is over 500 rows/second.
I saw
of CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about 190 rows/second.
On database B, INSERT performance is over 500 rows/second.
I saw some cache buffers chains, buffer busy, and library cache latch
waits on database A while the test was running, as well
.), and the servers are identical except for the number of
CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about 190 rows/second.
On database B, INSERT performance is over 500 rows/second.
I saw some cache buffers chains, buffer busy, and library
Greetings!
I am trying to diagnose a performance difference between two databases
running the same test. They are similarly configured (same SGA size,
etc.), and the servers are identical except for the number of CPUs
(server A has 4, server B has 6).
On database A, INSERT performance is about
Follow-up question: can someone explain exactly why buffer busy waits
can be due to heavy insert activity when there are insufficient
freelists? I suspect that this may figure into my problem with insert
performance. Thanks!
Paul Baumgartel
.
Anjo.
Paul Baumgartel wrote:
Follow-up question: can someone explain exactly why buffer busy waits
can be due to heavy insert activity when there are insufficient
freelists? I suspect that this may figure into my problem with insert
performance. Thanks!
Paul Baumgartel
19 matches
Mail list logo
