|
Just a couple more questions (sorry):
1) Do you have a Primary Key constrain on the tables? If so, have you
tried to create a copy with an external DDL Unique Index and NO PK
constrain?
2) Have you checked the Condensed Index Advisor view on the tables
involved?
3) Have you tried to lowered the aggressiveness for QQRYDEGREE to
something more conservative? Even *NONE?
4) Is this a DDS or DDL based table?
Regards
Diego Kesselman
El 08/12/16 a las 22:31, DrFranken escribió:
lparstat -E on the VIO partitions shows 3.0Ghz(100%) so no restriction
there.
For the first month end Yes! It took off and ran much quicker. Then
for this second month end, *SPLAT. Ugly.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 12/8/2016 11:21 PM, Evan Harris wrote:
Well you could run more threads if you wanted (but that's potentially
just
another rabbit hole to disappear down). It might help your
performance for
later on so maybe somethgni to keep up your sleeve.
Did you get the performance improvement you expected on power 8 ? We had
some CPU's that went into safe mode and were running at around 2/3's
capacity so RRD2LPAR and performance tools would show the CPU at 100%
but
the frequency of the chip had been dropped due to a power cyclign test.
When we compared Rperfs/CPW between the Power 7 and Power 8 kit we were
left scratching our heads. That started out as a performance
investigation
as well. Don;t know if you have any AIX LPARs but lparstat -E will
show you
how what frequency the chip is runnign at.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:12 PM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Indices seem to be the favorite target here. Also IBM pretty much said
"Build indices or stop calling." And so we are. Besides I think
everyone
here has seen building an index or three that 'shouldn't matter' but IT
MATTERED! It's been a bit of a push to get the customer to agree,
though he
finally does.
Performance explorer showed as you describe, huge CPU queuing. More the
twice the time spent queuing as in the processor. And the processors
were
at 100%.
As the system i i 7.1 it's running 4 threads.
DB2 Multi-system IS installed. It was NOT last month end. Seems like
all
it does is allow more processor burn. So that's actually a 'Thing that
changed' as we say. Hadn't realized when it was installed until you
asked.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 12/8/2016 10:43 PM, Evan Harris wrote:
HiThis is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
I figure you have this covered anyway, but I have a few questions
apart
form the obvious (just being nosey really).
Last couple of times I had something like this it was absolutely
indexe
related. In once case, we had some temp indexes that got dropped
as part
of a restore that no-one noticed and once we did what the advisor
said all
was good again. I wonder whether an IPL or restricted state might have
some
kind of effect on the SQL plan cache or whatever. The SQL advisor
and plan
stuff was really interesting/useful for looking at this stuff.
How many threads are you running on the power 8 ?
Is DB2 multisystem on for these queries ?
Are you collecting statistics ?
Anything interesting in Performance explorer ? Recently saw
interesting
stuff in terms of excessive CPU queuing on a Power . Using the Wait
graphs
turned up a lot of waiting on CPU queues
It strikes me that all that extra data could cause some interesting
changes
to the best way to query, so I would be going with the indexes....
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:34 PM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We do know it's using SQE it reports that.
The queries do come from outside the i as you mention yours do. A
single
query is 20K in a text document. We cannot with absolute certainty
say
they
haven't changed the queries but the analysts swear they didn't.
There were no PTFs loaded since last month. We did go restricted
and take
a full SAVE 21 and then bring it back up. Not sure if anything would
change
based on ending and restarting subsystems like that. I certainly
would
not
expect any.
One other thing is that last me that all that extra data could
cause some interesting
changes
to the best way to query, so I would be going with the indexes....
me that all that extra data could cause some interesting
changes
to the best way to query, so I would be going with the indexes....
month-end was the first on Power8. It was
MUCH faster than on the Power7 before it. The Power7 system had
internal
disk but most were SSD and had 3 cores vs 6 and about 1/4TB memory vs
3/8TB. This is the second month end on Power8 and the again the
primary
change was about 50% additional data added due to a new customer.
We are in the process of building the requested indices as well as
a few
others recommended.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 12/8/2016 8:50 PM, midrange wrote:
Indexes can make a big difference, but the 20 minutes to 24 hrs
indicates
itThis is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
is likely something else...
Our database is a fair amount larger on a Power 7+ single core
and they
pull
almost the entire database into a warehouse
In about an hour every night..
In our shop the win team is sometimes changing the queries so we
have
to
watch the indexes.
Certain changes could cause it to run the old "classic" engine
which is
most
likely much slower (but not always).
The analyzer can tell you if old versus newer SQE.
DB2 changes via ptf have bitten us couple times where it would
spin for
hours, on a very complex query - we sent it to the lab
And they said it broke theirs as well (it was one query pages
long ...)
The
win guys rewrote it after I pointed out how bad some of it was.
I assume the network connections and packet sizes and all that
did not
change.
A big possibility is that the win team changed or upgraded the data
connection product or parms - I have seen dramatic changes.
We do build all indexes as logical files so the Power I team has
view of
the
source code (still running Hawkeye to track all the database and
programs.
Jim Franz
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
DrFranken
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 8:14 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Shared pool vs Private Pool for SQL
Faults? None. Paging? None. Those were all those .0's from
WrkSysSts!
That's the frustrating part. The thing is doing almost no I/O at
all but
burning four Power8 processors at 100% each. Basically for 24 Hours.
We are building the indices and hope they make the difference we
need!!
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 12/8/2016 2:44 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:
Doc...
My first thought is that the 50% more data has outgrown the memory
pool....
But I'd expect to see more disk I/O...what do the fault rates look
like?
My understanding, private pools are great for ensuring a given
level
of performance, but the cost is extra admin to change them if the
workload changes. Adding 50% more data, I'd expect to have to add
memory to keep the same level of performance.
Charles
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:19 PM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Have a customer running some pretty serious SQL queries from MS
products to i. Those have recently begun taking
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
longer than they used to. Like from 20 minutes last month end
to 24+
Hours this time.
Only difference is about 50% more data. Yeah that's a lot but it
shouldn't make this level of difference!!!
Power8. 6 Cores. 384GB Memory. SSD Storage on Storwize. i 7.1.
Current PTFs.
The queries in question (QZDASOINIT) run in a private memory
pool to
a subsystem NOT in a shared pool. Thus the paging option (*CALC
*FIXED) is forced to *FIXED.
Anyone seen where this makes a significant difference moving to a
shared pool with *CALC? Given the fabulously low I/O I'm
thinking not.
A bit more on the environment:
The pool has 15GB memory and just one query at a time runs
there. For
EXTENDED periods of time the I/O numbers for the pool from
WRKSYSSTS
are
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0. I/Os in the job are from WRKACTJOB
might
be
4 or 5 per second. There are four active threads each effectively
consuming a full processor and all are running
DbopThreadMain__FP14DbopThreadParm.
The jobs burn through 250,000 CPU seconds in 24 hours.
We did bring up visual explain and yeah there is a lot going on
there. The thing could make a cool "FatHead" decal and would
need to
be that big to be readable on a wall. But the same queries ran
last
month
so....
IBM's only advice is 'you need to build the indices the query
optimizer is recommending.' There are 9 it recommends with a total--
build time of about
45 minutes so not insignificant. Tables are in the 4M rows plus in
size so 'big' but certainly not 'huge'. We are working on building
these to shop standard naming. Hoping they really do help!
--
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our
affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
--
mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
