Skip to Main Content

Oracle Database Discussions

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback about Oracle Forums, please email oracle-forums-moderators_us@oracle.com. Technical questions should be asked in the appropriate category. Thank you!

Interested in getting your voice heard by members of the Developer Marketing team at Oracle? Check out this post for AppDev or this post for AI focus group information.

TEMP usage in Parallel Query | Why can't it use the spare RAM?

802327Oct 1 2010 — edited Oct 1 2010
Hi All

I have a query running with parallel degree 8 on Red Hat 64 bit, 10.2.0.4.0, with 16 CPUs and 32GB of RAM.

My PGA target is 28 GB, SGA target at 2 GB.

I am using this Oracle instance purely for some datamart ETL, in order to deliver data to a separate reporting database. No other clients hit the instance.

I watch the instance during the query. Depending on volumes, I will sometimes get TEMP memory spill. This is not huge - maybe 2 to 4 GB of use, but even so, I don't want it to spill ,as the duration of the batch job is bigger than it needs to be.

I've tried increasing pgamax_size to use more RAM, and this helps to a point. However, there are some Oracle limits, after which TEMP space comes back into play. I've also tried tinkering with the smmmax_size and smmpx_max_size, but cannot seem to get any improvement. Changing the degree of parallelism makes little difference.

Looking at the Linux config, I have reduced swappiness to prevent the Oracle processes from being swapped out. And I can observe that only 4 to 6 GB of actual RAM is being used. I still have 20 - 24 GB completely free.

So - how do I get Oracle to actually consume this RAM rather than using TEMP space?

One option is to configure a RAM DISK of 8GB, and build the TEMP tablespace in that location. But is this really the answer? It seems like a 'fudge' rather than a solution.

The query plan is tuned well, and seems optimal.

Any help would be appreciated - thanks, Ankle.
Comments
Locked Post
New comments cannot be posted to this locked post.
Post Details
Locked on Oct 29 2010
Added on Oct 1 2010
5 comments
1,067 views