Save 
Join IIUG
 for   
 

Informix News
29 July 09 - Wall Street Journal - IBM to Acquire SPSS, Adding to Acquisitions... Read
11 February 09 - InformationWeek - IBM Drifts Slowly Toward Mainstream Cloud Computing... Read
11 February 09 - CNNMoney.com - IBM to Deliver Software via Cloud Computing With Amazon Web Services... Read
07 January 09 - Huliq News - IBM Power Servers Helps Bank of Chengdu Build Up Core Banking System.. Read
04 December 08 - Steeleye - Multicarta achieves 99.997% uptime for its Informix-based Credit Card Authorization Centre... Read
16 October 08 - VendorRate - Informix Earns Top Customer Satisfaction Score on VendorRate in Q3... Read
14 August 08 - IIUG.org - Sellout Expected for the 2009 IIUG Informix Conference... Read
29 April 08 - IntelligentEnterprise.com - IBM Informix Upgrade Enhances Clustering, Database Management... Read
29 April 08 - itweek.com - IBM 'Cheetah 2' mauls data costs... Read
28 April 08 - eWeek.com - IBM Uncages Cheetah 2 Data Server... Read
28 April 08 - CNNMoney.com - IBM Helps Clients Reduce Data Management Costs With New Informix Dynamic Server... Read
09 April 08 - CNNMoney.com - MediaSpan Embeds IBM Informix Dynamic Server Software for Delivering News to Print, Web and Wireless Devices... Read
08 April 08 - IT-Director.com - Informix seeks developers... Read
18 February 08 - marketwire.com - Icarus Studios Partners With IBM to Upgrade Performance, Availability for Its Online Games... Read
17 January 08 - eWeek.com - IBM Adds Mac Support to IDS for Higher Education... Read
17 January 08 - informationweek.com - Lotus Notes For iPhone Signals Closer Ties Between IBM, Apple... Read
16 January 08 - marketwire.com - IBM Informix Dynamic Server to Deliver Support for Mac OS X... Read
16 January 08 - internetnews.com - IBM's IDS to Support Mac Platform... Read
28 June 07 - REG Developer - IBM and Informix tie down Cheetah... Read
27 June 07 - CBRonline.com - IBM corrects its own Informix customer figures... Read
14 June 07 - vnunet.com - IBM changes spots with Informix 'Cheetah' database... Read
14 June 07 - eChannelLine - IBM expands scope for IDS... Read
14 June 07 - Resellernews - IBM: Informix database alive and kicking... Read
13 June 07 - DB2 Magazine - Cheetah is now out of the gate... Read
12 June 07 - IBM - IDS 11 release announcement (pdf)... Read
12 June 07 - ChannelWeb Network - IBM Uncages IDS 11, Aka Cheetah, Database... Read
12 June 07 - eWeek.com - IBM's 'Cheetah' Ready to Pounce... Read
12 June 07 - InformationWeek - IBM Unleashes 'Cheetah' Database... Read
12 June 07 - WebWire - IBM Strengthens Database Portfolio With New Informix Dynamic Server... Read
12 June 07 - Intelligent Enterprise - IBM Unveils Informix Upgrade... Read
12 June 07 - ComputerWeekly.com - IBM's Cheetah IDS makes leap to better data centre clustering... Read
12 June 07 - ebiz - IBM Unveils Next Generation Informix Dynamic Server... Read
12 June 07 - computerworld.com - Will 'Cheetah' help IBM's Informix chase down market share?... Read
12 June 07 - Internetnews.com - No Data Can Outrun This 'Cheetah'... Read
12 June 07 - de.internet.com - IBM neuer Datenbank-Server mit Codenamen Cheetah ist fertig... Read
12 June 07 - verifox.de - IBM stärkt Datenbank-Portfolio mit neuem Informix Dynamic Server... Read
12 June 07 - golem.de - Informix 11 vorgestellt... Read
12 June 07 - Computerwoche.de - IBM stellt neue Informix-Version vor... Read
12 June 07 - IBM.de - IBM stärkt Datenbank-Portfolio mit neuem Informix Dynamic Server... Read
12 June 07 - Heise - IBM gibt Informix 11 frei... Read
25 May 07 - Taiwan.CNET.com - Local Taiwan Informix user group established... (Chinese language) ... Read
18 May 07 - ChannelWeb Network - IBM Musters Partners For Cheetah Release... Read
18 May 07 - eWeek.com - IBM Looks to 'Cheetah' to Speed Up Blade Servers... Read
7 May 07 - DB2 Magazine - SQL Shortcuts - Use these tricks to generate IDS SQL scripts... Read




End of Support Dates
IDS 7.31 - 30 Sep 2009
IDS 9.40 - 30 Apr 2009
IDS 10.00 - 30 Sep 2010
Subscribe to notifications

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

IDS Forum

Re: Question about sysindexes.clust

Posted By: Eric Rowell
Date: Tuesday, 18 November 2008, at 3:24 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Question about sysindexes.clust (Obnoxio The Clown)

This will be hard to look at without putting it in something to line it all
up. The following is the stats form sysptprof for just this application
running. These are just for the table in question. The other table
involved are processed by a different loop of code and appears to have no
difference in the sysptprof's captured at runtime.

Base
tabname partnum isreads bufreads pagreads
ix_qty_det_pn_sl 112197634 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sk 95420418 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sl 95420419 52177249 56982064 22533
ix_qty_det_vi_ed_sl 112197635 0 0 0
qty_det 19922946 8661696 8661632 321953
qty_det 56623106 8635728 8635745 377128
qty_det 83886082 8656948 8656879 377073
qty_det 85983234 8648646 8648658 371842
qty_det 134217730 8649673 8649651 375125
qty_det 137363458 8667249 8667221 410169

Bad
tabname partnum isreads bufreads pagreads
ix_qty_det_pn_sl 112197634 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sk 95420418 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sl 95420419 52210032 55410714 11602
ix_qty_det_vi_ed_sl 112197635 0 0 0
qty_det 19922946 8522764 8527210 23631
qty_det 56623106 8339915 8344259 22995
qty_det 83886082 8642249 8647025 25673
qty_det 85983234 8368976 8371153 24633
qty_det 134217730 9862512 9864620 27256
qty_det 137363458 8185929 8192707 25085

Diff- Base vs. Bad
tabname partnum isreads bufreads pagreads
ix_qty_det_pn_sl 112197634 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sk 95420418 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sl 95420419 5785 61657 22553
ix_qty_det_vi_ed_sl 112197635 0 0 0
qty_det 19922946 5838 5930 1323271
qty_det 56623106 12784 12790 1360551
qty_det 83886082 -16823 -16727 1349929
qty_det 85983234 -14263 -14267 1362454
qty_det 134217730 17986 18054 1374809
qty_det 137363458 -3544 -3484 1386884

Good
tabname partnum isreads bufreads pagreads
ix_qty_det_pn_sl 112197634 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sk 95420418 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sl 95420419 52183034 57043721 45086
ix_qty_det_vi_ed_sl 112197635 0 0 0
qty_det 19922946 8667534 8667562 1645224
qty_det 56623106 8648512 8648535 1737679
qty_det 83886082 8640125 8640152 1727002
qty_det 85983234 8634383 8634391 1734296
qty_det 134217730 8667659 8667705 1749934
qty_det 137363458 8663705 8663737 1797053

Diff- Base vs. Good
tabname partnum isreads bufreads pagreads
ix_qty_det_pn_sl 112197634 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sk 95420418 0 0 0
ix_qty_det_sl 95420419 32783 -1571350 -10931
ix_qty_det_vi_ed_sl 112197635 0 0 0
qty_det 19922946 -138932 -134422 -298322
qty_det 56623106 -295813 -291486 -354133
qty_det 83886082 -14699 -9854 -351400
qty_det 85983234 -279670 -277505 -347209
qty_det 134217730 1212839 1214969 -347869
qty_det 137363458 -481320 -474514 -385084

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Obnoxio The Clown
<obnoxio@serendipita.com>wrote:

> Eric Rowell wrote:
> > The following is the explain plain for the only query in the program
> which
> > isn't running correctly. The first is the plan from the normal run
> (filter
> > data had to be changed to project my job). The info after that is from a
> > diff of the explain outs for 2 more configurations. Also during all tests
> > we used a production like system (smaller CPU and slower SAN) but we know
> > the approx. modifier from prod to dev. When we sorted the data by the
> > serial_link and reloaded (changing the fragmentation as shown earlier
> things
> > run much better.
> >
> > EXPLAIN from normal run...
> >
> > QUERY:
> > ------
> > SELECT qd.option_list, oq.optid
> > FROM qty_head qh, qty_det qd, optcombo_qty oq
> > WHERE ((qh.set_no = "FINDA" AND qh.version = "09") OR
> >
> > (qh.set_no = "ORFND" AND qh.version = "01"))
> >
> > AND qh.serial_key = qd.serial_link
> >
> > AND qd.serial_key = oq.option_group_id
> >
> > AND qh.dept_code IN ("AAA","BBB","CCC","DDD","EEE")
> >
> > AND qh.community = "00"
> >
> > Estimated Cost: 1049986
> > Estimated # of Rows Returned: 1083718
> > 1) informix.qh: INDEX PATH
> >
> > (1) Index Keys: dept_code community set_no version phase_no lot
> > area_group_id
> >
> > (Key-First) (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: (informix.qh.dept_code = 'AAA' AND
> > informix.qh.community = '00' )
> >
> > Index Key Filters: (( (informix.qh.set_no = 'FINDA' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '09')
> >
> > OR (informix.qh.set_no = 'ORFND' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '01')))
> >
> > (2) Index Keys: dept_code community set_no version phase_no lot
> > area_group_id
> >
> > (Key-First) (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: (informix.qh.dept_code = 'BBB' AND
> > informix.qh.community = '00' )
> >
> > Index Key Filters: (( (informix.qh.set_no = 'FINDA' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '09')
> >
> > OR (informix.qh.set_no = 'ORFND' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '01')))
> >
> > (3) Index Keys: dept_code community set_no version phase_no lot
> > area_group_id
> >
> > (Key-First) (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: (informix.qh.dept_code = 'CCC' AND
> > informix.qh.community = '00' )
> >
> > Index Key Filters: (( (informix.qh.set_no = 'FINDA' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '09')
> >
> > OR (informix.qh.set_no = 'ORFND' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '01')))
> >
> > (4) Index Keys: dept_code community set_no version phase_no lot
> > area_group_id
> >
> > (Key-First) (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: (informix.qh.dept_code = 'DDD' AND
> > informix.qh.community = '00' )
> >
> > Index Key Filters: (( (informix.qh.set_no = 'FINDA' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '09')
> >
> > OR (informix.qh.set_no = 'ORFND' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '01')))
> >
> > (5) Index Keys: dept_code community set_no version phase_no lot
> > area_group_id
> >
> > (Key-First) (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: (informix.qh.dept_code = 'EEE' AND
> > informix.qh.community = '00' )
> >
> > Index Key Filters: (( (informix.qh.set_no = 'FINDA' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '09' )
> >
> > OR (informix.qh.set_no = 'ORFND' AND
> > informix.qh.version = '01')))
> > 2) informix.qd: INDEX PATH
> >
> > (1) Index Keys: serial_link (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: informix.qh.serial_key = informix.qd.serial_link
> > NESTED LOOP JOIN
> > 3) informix.optcombo_head: INDEX PATH
> >
> > (1) Index Keys: serial_key option_list option_count (Serial,
> > fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: informix.qd.optcombo_head_key =
> > informix.optcombo_head.serial_key
> > NESTED LOOP JOIN
> > 4) product.qty_detail: INDEX PATH
> >
> > (1) Index Keys: serial_key (Serial, fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: informix.qd.serial_key =
> > product.qty_detail.serial_key
> > NESTED LOOP JOIN
> > 5) informix.oq: INDEX PATH
> >
> > (1) Index Keys: optcombo_head_key opt_id (Key-Only) (Serial,
> > fragments: ALL)
> >
> > Lower Index Filter: informix.oq.optcombo_head_key =
> > product.qty_detail.optcombo_head_key
> > NESTED LOOP JOIN
> >
> > Diff of Explain Plan after just reloading the table:
> > < Estimated Cost: 1049986
> > < Estimated # of Rows Returned: 1083718
> > ---
> >> Estimated Cost: 2348476
> >> Estimated # of Rows Returned: 1486409
> >
> > Diff of Explain Plan after reloading the sorting data (using
> serial_link):
> > < Estimated Cost: 1049986
> > < Estimated # of Rows Returned: 1083718
> > ---
> >> Estimated Cost: 851019
> >> Estimated # of Rows Returned: 1094319
> >
> > The cost difference appears to be in line with the change to the
> > sysindex.clust value for the indexes.
>
> And which table do you query from to see if there are missing rows and
> insert them?
>
> Basically, I can't disagree with your analysis, I'm just curious as to
> why ordering should have such a measurable impact on performance given
> the explain plan. In general, it doesn't.
>
> I feel like there is something lurking in the nether hells of my brain,
> but I can't quite drag it out. Last time I saw something like this, the
> root cause was "XXXX in my opinion" but I can't remember what "XXXX" was.
>
> Give me time. Or Art will be along shortly. :o)
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Obnoxio The Clown
>
> http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>

--
Eric B. Rowell

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

IDS Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.