Oracle 8i vs 9i ? - Page 2
DBAsupport.com Forums - Powered by vBulletin
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Oracle 8i vs 9i ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Ireland/Dublin
    Posts
    684
    O, yes guys ... Bug number. 1890146 is the reason of bad tuning ... may be ...


    [Edited by kgb on 04-26-2002 at 07:51 AM]
    Best wishes!
    Dmitri

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Ireland/Dublin
    Posts
    684

    Talking

    So, I do not hear any other wisdom thoughts form our moderatos ???
    Nothing to say to my address any more or nothing to say at all ?

    Ok, I'll explaine you what bug 1890146 means:

    Problem statement: SELECT COMMAND SLOWER IN 9I THAN 8I
    PROBLEM:
    1. Severe performance degradation in many select commands using CBO
    2. No MTS / No OPS / No distributed / No replication

    That means the same as buying a care without one wheel !!!
    Solution: you know what to do.
    Thanks for attention.
    Best wishes!
    Dmitri

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    143
    In some ways 7.3 is faster than 8i. You only have to bounce a database to find out that oracle 8i seems to take forever to shutdown compared to 7.3.4. Performance is lost between versions, probably due to additional logic being coded in the Kernal.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Posts
    4,439
    Originally posted by kgb
    So, I do not hear any other wisdom thoughts form our moderatos ???
    Nothing to say to my address any more or nothing to say at all ?
    Well, dear senior member, you should be more patient, don't loose your temper after waiting for an answer for a little more than an hour. Or do you think that anybody have enough time to ansver questions every minute? We all have our jobs that we are paid for, we are participating in this forums in our own free time.
    Ok, I'll explaine you what bug 1890146 means:

    Problem statement: SELECT COMMAND SLOWER IN 9I THAN 8I
    PROBLEM:
    1. Severe performance degradation in many select commands using CBO
    2. No MTS / No OPS / No distributed / No replication
    You should also explain what was the sollution for that bug, that turns out not to be bug at all! And you should also explain that this "bug" manifested itself only for some very specific type of queries - in most cases 9i is faster than 8i, that is a prooven fact.

    So about your "bug". It is not a bug realy, it is only a result of changed default setting of one of the hidden init parameters (_UNNEST_SUBQUERY). It defaults to TRUE in 9i, but it was FALSE in 8i. Set this parameter to TRUE in 9i and you'll see exactly the same execution plan as in 8i.
    That means the same as buying a care without one wheel !!!
    Strange comparison. This three wheel 9i car was almost twice as fast as the fastest 8i four wheel car according to tpmC benchmarks (And please don't give me lecture about how meaningless those benchmarks are - I know that. And despite that, my remark has much more relevance than yours.)
    Thanks for attention.
    You are welcome.
    Jurij Modic
    ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    24 hours in a day .... 24 beer in a case .... coincidence?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,684
    It's only my opinion but I've found Oracle9i to be much faster, more stable and easier to manage than Oracle8i.

    As Julian said earlier, I think people should take some time to investigate the product before making knee-jerk claims about Oracle9i.

    Baseline the performance on your current system. Once you've got some real data upgrade and get your new baseline. Only then can you have a true measure of performance between the systems. When I've done this Oracle9i has beaten Oracle8i and Oracle7, but as I said, it's just my experience.

    Remember, to get the most out of any engine you should follow the best practises associated with that version. There's no point in using Oracle9i that way you used Oracle6.

    Good luck.
    Tim...
    OCP DBA 7.3, 8, 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
    OCA PL/SQL Developer
    Oracle ACE Director
    My website: www.oracle-base.com
    My blog: www.oracle-base.com/blog

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    132
    I already mentioned this somehwere but im going to repeat it here. there are some companies already using oracle 9i in mission critical db's like axciom. check out

    http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/...o22acxiom.html


    "We have about 300 UNIX servers on our site, and that represents just over 200 terabytes of storage connected to all the servers. The 200 terabytes break down into Oracle servers that range in size from 1 terabyte to 6 terabytes of raw data. Our customer with 6 terabytes of raw data has about 24 terabytes of storage on his Compaq Alpha servers."


    Also, although we're still using 8i I have spoken to a few DBAs who are "happily" managing production 9i dbs for several months now. If you want to upgrade, upgrade to 9i.
    You think I'm going to have an affair with you? --Stanley Kowalski

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width