Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Sun T2000
Kevin,
thanks for the question. There were no PIO involved.
Here is what I see:
create table t as
select mod(level, 10) m10, mod(level, 25) m25, mod(level, 50) m50, level l from dual connect by level <= 500000;
Proliant results:
select m10, m25, m50, sum(l), count(*), min(l), max(l), avg(l)
from t
group by m10, m25, m50
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 1 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 5 0.69 0.67 0 649 0 50 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 7 0.69 0.67 0 650 0 50
T2000 results:
select m10, m25, m50, sum(l), count(*), min(l), max(l), avg(l)
from t
group by m10, m25, m50
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 Fetch 2 4.45 4.34 0 649 0 50 ------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- total 4 4.45 4.34 0 649 0 50
Both DB were created with a 16K blocksize. And mind that - Proliant were running with use_indirect_data_buffers=true.
On 3/25/07, Kevin Closson <kevinc_at_polyserve.com> wrote:
> of the T2000 server
> vs Proliant DL380 G3 (based on 3Ghz Xeons).
>
> One Niagara core were approximately 7 to 8 times slower than single
> Xeon CPU in batch task (huge sorts/aggregates) -
>
> ...I'm not syaing you didn't see this result, but that seem slower than
> expected. To what degree was I/O a factor?
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- Alexander Fatkulin -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sat Mar 24 2007 - 23:01:58 CDT
![]() |
![]() |