15 years ago, with the release of Oracle 7.0.12, Oracle gave the world—or at least its customers—something really great: the Oracle Wait Interface (OWI). We believe that the Oracle database software is the best instrumented database software available. The fact that Oracle already leads the industry in this regard probably led to their decision to make this leap forward in instrumentation an extra-cost item. However, in the interest of making Oracle even better, we would like to invite readers to join us in signing the following open letter to Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation.
Wilfred van der Deijl (fresh from an award-winning appearance at ODTUG) has published the 51st Log Buffer on OraTransplant.
Before you proceed with reading this post, I strongly encourage you to read Tom Kyte’s trilogy about write consistency, since I’ll do only a brief introduction to the subject. The way Oracle ensures UPDATE write consistency is through a mechanism called restart. Let’s take a look at an example before we proceed with the main topic of this blog post, Will there be any difference if we substitute the following MERGE for the last UPDATE?
A few month ago I posted about my indignation regarding the inability to change my email address on OTN. Now, I’m not only able to change my email address, but also the screen name (I don’t think I do that before either). In the end, it took Oracle just 2 months and 5 days to follow up on my post. Not too bad, considering that OTN forums were full of complaints for years! ;-)
I’m looking forward to the announcement of the next Oracle database version. It’ll be interesting to see how it’s going to be named. It’s been known so far as 11g but I expect an update on 11th of July.
Let’s take the following question, for example. Is there any difference between using: where column between n and m and where column>=n and column<=m? Looks like a simple one, eh? hey are the same from a semantic point of view. But SQL is a declarative language. In other words, you wouldn’t expect same execution plan with two semantically identical statements, would you? There is at least one known (to me) example where both statement produce different execution plans. You never know until you test it. We start by creating a simple list-partitioned table with the local index:
Yes, Log Buffer turns 50 today, as Elisa Gabbert publishes the big five-oh on Eye on Oracle. The big DBA-blog conversation does not stop. Read Log Buffer’s homepage and get in touch to edit and publish one yourself.
So you ran into some basic limitations with MyISAM when your site got busier. Even single row updates would lock the whole table and slow things down to a crawl. Then you updated to InnoDB to get the benefit of row-level locking, but now the site is even slower than before. What gives? Here’s whats happening….
My team and I still use old-style rollback segments for one of my client’s 10g production databases. We just never found the need to switch to automatic undo management. There are a number of 1GB rollback segments. They are that size because they need to be able to support large transactions. At the same time, we don’t want to have transactions bigger than 1GB as this is an OLTP system. For the past few weeks we’ve had a strange problem. One of the web calls would cause one of the rollback segments to become full by using 1GB of undo data.
Greetings everyone. I would like to announce that last weekend the BAAG party was born. If you are tired of observing troubleshooting by guessing day by day, by day, by day, by … — join the forces of BAAG party. We can make a difference together! See you there.