As I said I didn't verify his figures nor confirm he understands what constitutes a
transaction. I'll endeavor to do so. The system collects data from monitors
measuring the "health" of various test accelerator equipment. The telemetry is
buffered before being inserted so that multiple readin
Ok,
It is saturday morning (brain is working at half power), I have looked at this
function and at the original requirement and see a problem (may be 2).
1) The time of the multiple instances needs to be in sync with each other. If
not, it could be that the 2nd instance has an earlier time and
1) I think that the tpc numbers are done represented in Transactons Per Minute
(TPM/C) and not Per second. So event with 50 tpm/c it means around 8000
tps.
2) Inserting 13000 rows with direct I/O doesn't mean you did 13000
transactions. It could be one transaction
3) I have seen the the
One of our accelerator control system developers, an Oracle neophyte, claims to have
achieved 13,000 tps writing to a RAID 5 array. I did set up the database, but most of
the credit goes to him for exploring the OCI direct I/O options. I have no verified
the rate, but I have no reason whatsoe
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 09:53, Tim Gorman wrote:
> Thinking more about it last night...
>
> Since Oracle's theoretical limit is 16384 commits per second, I imagine
> that you could safely make the sequence recycle at (or 16384 or 9)
> and limit the number of digits contributed by t
portantly) zero physical reads thus zero
pings...
- Original Message -
From:
Gogala, Mladen
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:03
AM
Subject: RE: OPS Sequences: nocache ==
order ??
Neat
idea. Thanks!
-O
Neat
idea. Thanks!
-Original Message-From: Tim Gorman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:28
AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Re:
OPS Sequences: nocache == order ??
Mladen,
Is there any way to have developers/users
A day late and a dollar short but here's my $.02
Order will give you the temporal sequencing. Nocache should but it's not
certain.
Cached numbers are stored in the SYSTEM tablespace and can be retrieved in
an atemporal order. I can't give you any specifics, but that's what Oracle
says. Nocac
t; and it's "database independent". That gets 'em every
time...
Hope this helps...
-Tim
- Original Message -
From: "Mladen Gogala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday
I agree with Anoj, you need to talk to the business folks to remove this
dependency. Else you may encounter waits/queues on getting the next sequence
numbers. One of the benfits in OPS and in RAC is the sequence cache option,
because each instance will not have to query the Oracle's fast cache
Unfortunately, we have an application dependency and I was required
to come up with a quick & dirty fix. Thanks for your reply.
On 2002.09.03 19:10 Anjo Kolk wrote:
>
> If you run OPS and specify order, it works like no cache.
>
> My question to you: "Why cripple OPS and your business perfor
The way I see it is: If you specify ORDER then the only way Oracle can
enforce this is getting it from the dictionary which means no caching will
be implemented.
If you need the data to be ordered then (in my opinion) it's better to
declare what you need by using option "ORDER".
Using option "N
Yes, but when analyzed, it turns out that NOCACHE will also
yield ordered results. What I'm interested in are internal differences
in behavior. My assumption is that with ORDER oracle queries the instances
directly, while NOCACHE will simply read/write everything from the disk.
On 2002.09.03 1
If you run OPS and specify order, it works like no cache.
My question to you: "Why cripple OPS and your business performance by having
this requirement ?" Spending a few bucks to get rid of this dependency will
improve the performance, until you run in to the next problem ;-)
Anjo.
On Wed
It
looks like when option "ORDER" is used Oracle guarantees the generated values
will be in order since the "CACHE" option will be ignored by Oracle even if it
was requested.
This
is in the parallel mode.
Look
at note: Note:1031850.6
Waleed
-Original Message-From: Gogala, M
15 matches
Mail list logo
