![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I've got an OLTP system that has developed poor performance. I eventually tracked it down to excessive DBSPACETEMP I/O by monitoring onstat -D. The pages read/written to the temp space far exceed the I/O on our data spaces. It's been suggested in a previous post (see: Tracking down excessive DBSPACETEMP I/O) that I use the PSORT_DBTEMP environment variable to bypass DBSPACETEMP and use the file system instead. I'm a little worried about that however. It seems to me that it would be slower. I'll have to do some testing Using the query from the FAQ on locating temp tables, I am seeing a lot of tables named th_probe_ffffffffffffffff and th_build_ffffffffffffffff in database HASHTEMP that persist much longer than I would think is required for most queries. Any ideas what these tables are and why they are killing my performance? -- Jeff jlar310 at yahoo |

#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
I've got an OLTP system that has developed poor performance. I eventually tracked it down to excessive DBSPACETEMP I/O by monitoring onstat -D. The pages read/written to the temp space far exceed the I/O on our data spaces. It's been suggested in a previous post (see: Tracking down excessive DBSPACETEMP I/O) that I use the PSORT_DBTEMP environment variable to bypass DBSPACETEMP and use the file system instead. I'm a little worried about that however. It seems to me that it would be slower. I'll have to do some testing Using the query from the FAQ on locating temp tables, I am seeing a lot of tables named th_probe_ffffffffffffffff and th_build_ffffffffffffffff in database HASHTEMP that persist much longer than I would think is required for most queries. Any ideas what these tables are and why they are killing my performance? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |