Re: Performance

Jack wrote:
> > Possibly the real issue here is the fact that production is on 9.0.1.4
> > and test is using 9.2.0.4 and changes to the CBO have been implemented.
> > In 9.2, for example, dynamic sampling is available (it is not in
> > 9.0.1); this can make a difference in how the optimiser 'sees' the data
> > since in the absence of computed/estimated statistics the dynamic
> > sampling mechanism will provide some aid to the optimiser. You'll also
> > need to note which bugs in 9.0.1 were fixed in 9.2.0. Jonathan Lewis
> > probably has on his website information on how the optimiser has
> > changed between 9.0.1.x and 9.2.0.x; I would visit
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/ to find out more.
> >
> > Since your environments aren't the same for both systems a comparison
> > between them isn't worth much; 9.0.1.4 on some version of Solaris (no
> > mention of O/S release or patch level and no mention of whether this is
> > x86 or SPARC) compared to 9.2.0.4 running on a Win XP box (no mention
> > of which service packs are installed). Also no mention of the
> > available memory, disk configuration, user load, server load, whether
> > these connections are local or networked, network speed, network health
> > ... too much information is missing to assess this situation
> > accurately.
> >
> >
> > David Fitzjarrell
> >
> Hi!
>
> Well, you are rigth in many point.
> But this is real life situation, none testlab case.
>
> The point is how to fix it?
> Or just say that network is busy, server old/slow and db version old.
> But software is ok, because it is fast in old desktop pc ;)

Why don't you see what prod is waiting on? See the performance tuning guide.

I also think you should collect stats on all the tables and see what CBO has to say about it - and then trace it and perhaps even hint it. And try it on 9iR2 on the same type of platform.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Arrrrrr.  Grandma pirates.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060915/news_lz1n15read.html