Just add on,
It looks the similar on 9i too.
Why non-ASSM table is spending more pure CPU then ASM?
It can be because of this totally specific test, but
why?
tkprof and Oracle v$ views showed that CPU time is
just different as I stated, very different.
This is telling me that ASSM is just much much faster.
Regards,
Zoran
- Martic Zoran <zoran_martic_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot Anjo,
>
> > ASSM will not do that many recursive SQL (data
> > dictionary operations).
> I understand that, but here I am not seeing them
> with
> the trace 10046.
> So I said it is internal to Oracle algorithm how it
> is
> done.
>
> > difference is made there.You could probably get
> > better results with non-ASSM
> > by using freelists and using large extents. Your
> > difference is purely in the
> > recursive SQL part.
> For me it is the same speed, whatever extent size.
> I am not expecting that to be the problem either
> because I did truncate reuse storage too before the
> test.
>
> Did Oracle change something from 10g?
>
> I should go and do the test on 9i because now I am
> curious.
>
> I am maybe stupid and do not get it.
>
> Regards,
> Zoran
>
>
>
> --- Anjo Kolk <anjo.kolk_at_oraperf.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > ASSM will not do that many recursive SQL (data
> > dictionary operations). The
> > difference is made there.You could probably get
> > better results with non-ASSM
> > by using freelists and using large extents. Your
> > difference is purely in the
> > recursive SQL part.
> >
> > Anjo.
> > .
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Fri Mar 25 2005 - 09:43:55 CST
