Re: RAC and table partitioning

From: K Gopalakrishnan <kaygopal_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:00:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN5iexHqr8pOs0A4L8Gc9HwQmYt8gPW3q9+NnWGkMHqYXTeGJg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Vasu. The benefits are higher than the cluster waits issue. With the new resource mastering algorithms each partitions can be mastered locally and you will have reduced inter instance messages. Resource mastering and remastering happens at segment level and partitions have big impact on this. Have a look at chapter 11 of my rac book if you have it handy. If not search for "rac resource mastering" in google you might find some interesting hits.
On Monday, July 9, 2012, Vasu wrote:

> Common sense says "data usage on RAC nodes- aligned to table partitions
> " should do better.
> Say, a table list partitioned on state column, thus dividing Txn activity
> of major states such as NY and CA into 2 different partitions.
> App is serviced by 2 node RAC, and all NY customers are served thru node-1
> , and CA customers thru node-2
> Simple data load comparison shows that cluster-waits are more in the mixed
> workload scheme.
>
> My question is : Has anyone seen significant/dramatic performance gains by
> aligning application usage to table partitioning ?
> If so, what was the gain % (though it would largely depend on the workload
> , h/w etc )
>
> Thanks in advance.
> -Vasu
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Tue Jul 10 2012 - 01:00:43 CDT