Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.databases.oracle.server
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion ASSM bug: slow INSERT after uncomitted DELETE
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John Hurley  
View profile  
 More options Aug 9 2009, 2:09 pm
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
From: John Hurley <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Aug 9 2009 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: ASSM bug: slow INSERT after uncomitted DELETE
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Aug 8, 1:55 pm, Charles Hooper <hooperc2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

> > Charles I got a little lost trying to follow your reply ... sorry.

> > Wonder if I either screwed something up ( I don't think so ... was
> > careful to check tablespace was ASSM and that inserts were in
> > different sessions ) or if there is something fixed in 11.1.0.7 in
> > linux 64 bit that still has problems on other platforms and/or if the
> > fact that my setup is using ASM is also throwing a wrinkle into
> > things?

> > Noons seemed to report that he did not see the same problem either but
> > I think that was before the complete test case was posted.

> I was not implying that you made a mistake in your test run, I just
> saw a couple potential problems with the original test case
> description which might cause someone (including myself) to conduct
> the test a little different than the OP.  That might include:
> * Batching the inserts in the second session, rather than using 1,000
> individual SQL statements for the insert.
> * Creating the tablespace with the wrong specifications (that happened
> to me when I initially tried to set up the tablespace with the 1MB non-
> ASSM tablespace - I actually created an ASSM tablespace with 1MB
> uniform extents which resulted in roughly the same slow timing as the
> ASSM autoallocate tablespace).
> * A 10046 trace at level 8 was not set up in the original test case,
> which would make it hard to determine where the time was spent.

Well as it turns out I had messed up the testing and after doing it a
little/lot more carefully my run showed the same problem as noted by
the OP.

It was a pretty well written test case I just missed the part for step
4 where you had to run the select first to generate the insert
statements.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google