Re: Performance sqlldr (direct path) on 9.2.0.3

Thanks Jonathan!

Times are taken from the loader log. So I will try to find out, how the overall CPU-Time is distributed on the two processes.

Heiko

"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b7lqu4$4u8$1$8300dec7_at_news.demon.co.uk>...
> When you use SQL*Ldr, there are two CPU time
> components to consider - the loader itself, and
> the Oracle server that it is talking to.
>
> Are your CPU times taken from the loader log
> file, or by looking at the O/S statistics for both
> processes. It is possible that some of the work
> done has moved from one process to the other.
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Lewis
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
>
> The educated person is not the person
> who can answer the questions, but the
> person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr
>
>
> One-day tutorials:
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html
>
> ____UK_______April 22nd
> ____USA_(FL)_May 2nd
> ____Denmark__May 21-23rd
> ____Sweden___June
> ____Finland__September
> ____Norway___September
>
> Three-day seminar:
> see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
> ____UK_(Manchester)_May x 2
> ____Estonia___June (provisional)
> ____Australia_June (provisional)
> ____USA_(CA, TX)_August
>
> The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
> http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
>
>
> "Heiko Welter" <heiko.welter_at_t-mobile.de> wrote in message
> news:5b9217b5.0304162313.2322dfb4_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hi!
> >
> > Testing sqlldr on 9.2.0.3 (32-Bit) and 8.1.7.2 we found out, that
> the
> > CPU-Time used for the load "exploded":
> >
> > a) 8.1.7.2
> > Elapsed time was: 00:00:15.18
> > CPU time was: 00:00:00.52
> >
> > b) 9.2.0.3 (almost no load on that machine!)
> > Elapsed time was: 00:00:08.01
> > CPU time was: 00:00:05.07
> >
> > While testing sqlldr on 9.2.0.3 (64-Bit) with a larger File (1 GB)
> the
> > used CPU-Time increased 300%. Times are taken from the
> Loader-Logfile.
> >
> > Has anyone made similar experience? Is this really true, or did they
> > only change the way they measure the CPU-Usage? Is that a reasonable
> > relationship between elapsed time and cpu-time?
> >
> > Thanks for your ideas/suggestions!
> >
> > cheers
> > Heiko
Received on Thu Apr 17 2003 - 08:06:52 CDT