A recent thread on the OTN database forum supplied some code that seemed to show that In-memory DB made no difference to performance when compared with the traditional row-store mechanism and asked why not. (It looked as if the answer was that almost all the time for the tests was spent returning the 3M row result set to the SQL*Plus client 15 rows at a time.)
The responses on the thread led to the question: Why would the in-memory (column-store) database be faster than simply having the (row-store) data fully cached in the buffer cache ?
I will be talking in Rocky Mountain Oracle User Group Training Days 2015( http://www.rmoug.org), with live demos (hopefully there will be no failures in the demo). My topics are:
Feb 17: Deep dive: 3:15PM to 5:15PM – RAC 12c optimization: I will discuss RAC global cache layer in detail with a few demos. You probably can’t find these deep Global Cache layer details anywhere else :)
Feb 19: Wednesday: 2:45PM to 3:45PM – Advanced UNIX tools: I will discuss both Solaris and Linux advanced tools to debug deep performance issues.
Feb 19: Wednesday: 12:15PM – 1:15PM – Exadata SIG panel with Alex Fatkulin.
Come to Denver. Come on, it won’t be cold ( I think :) )
The spelling is with a Z rather than an S because it’s an Oracle thing.
Tim Hall has just published a set of notes on Adaptive Query Optimization, so I thought I’d throw in one extra little detail.
When the optimizer decides that a query execution plan involves some guesswork the run-time engine can monitor the execution of the query and collect some information that may allow the optimizer to produce a better execution plan. The interaction between all the re-optimization mechanisms can get very messy, so I’m not going to try to cover all the possibilities – read Tim’s notes for that – but one of the ways in which this type of information can be kept is now visible in a dynamic performance view.
I’ve previously discussed the new Zone Map database feature and how they work in a similar manner to Exadata Storage indexes. Just like Storage Indexes (and conventional indexes for that manner), they work best when the data is well clustered in relation to the Zone Map or index. By having the data in the table […]
Just a quick note that I posted slides for the 2 talks I did at ECO in Raleigh this week:
Great crowd. I really enjoyed myself.
Note: You can also find other presentations on my Whitepapers/Presentations page via the link at the top of the screen.
As shared by a well known Oracle and Big Data performance geek!
SQL> ALTER SYSTEM SET inmemory_size = 5T SCOPE=spfile; ALTER SYSTEM SET inmemory_size = 5T SCOPE=spfile * ERROR at line 1: ORA-32005: error while parsing size specification [5T] SQL> ALTER SYSTEM SET inmemory_size = 5120G SCOPE=spfile; System altered.
A good question from Robert Thorneycroft I thought warranted its own post. He asked: “I have a question regarding bitmapped indexes verses index compression. In your previous blog titled ‘So What Is A Good Cardinality Estimate For A Bitmap Index Column ? (Song 2)’ you came to the conclusion that ‘500,000 distinct values in a 1 […]
In Part I, I discussed how Zone Maps are new index like structures, similar to Exadata Storage Indexes, that enables the “pruning” of disk blocks during accesses of the table by storing the min and max values of selected columns for each “zone” of a table. A Zone being a range of contiguous (8M) blocks. I […]
I’ve spent the last couple of evenings playing with the new SQL pattern matching feature in Oracle 12c.
I’m doing some sessions on analytic functions in some upcoming conferences and I thought I should look at this stuff. I’m not really going to include much, if anything, about it as my sessions are focussed on beginners and I don’t really want to scare people off. The idea is to ease people in gently, then let them scare themselves once they are hooked on analytics. I’m thinking about Hooked on Monkey Fonics now…
A recent posting on OTN reminded me that I haven’t been poking Oracle 12c very hard to see which defects in reporting execution plans have been fixed. The last time I wrote something about the problem was about 20 months ago referencing 126.96.36.199; but there are still oddities and irritations that make the nice easy “first child first” algorithm fail because the depth calculated by Oracle doesn’t match the level that you would get from a connect-by query on the underlying plan table. Here’s a simple fail in 12c: