Re: DD_HASHSIZE , DD_HASHMAX

A few questions. #1 How many Databases do you have in the instance. #2 Do you perform any remote queries to other instances from the instance. #3 How long has the instance been up. Multiple copies of the same table usually indicates that you have multiple versions of the table, and applications still have cursors attached against them, for example if you have run an alter table. Now those App's should be getting 710 errors, but until those applications actually end, the refcount for the DD entry will still be set to 1, or greater, which means the DD Entry cannot be cleaned out of the cache. I haven't tested the impact of an in-place alter though. ----- Original Message ---- From: "tichman@excite.com" <tichman@excite.com> To: informix-list@iiug.org Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:39:20 AM Subject: DD_HASHSIZE , DD_HASHMAX We are running 7.31.UD3 on Solaris 5.9.I am investigating the optimal setting DD_HASHSIZE and DD_HASHMAX. Currenlty they are set at the default (31 and 10).We have approximately 430 tables in the database but when we run onstat -g dic I get 2400 data dictionary entries which seems very high to me. I then noticed that there are multiple entries for some of the tables in the onstat -g dic output. Is this normal? _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

We have two databases on the instance but all the tables in onstat -g dic show that they are from one DB. We do not perform any remote queries and the instance has been up for 11 days. For some reason it seems to be adding more duplicates to the list even though none of the duplicated tables is being altered in any way. Mark Jamison wrote: > A few questions. > > #1 How many Databases do you have in the instance. > > #2 Do you perform any remote queries to other instances from the instance. > > #3 How long has the instance been up. > > > Multiple copies of the same table usually indicates that you have multiple versions of the table, and applications still have cursors attached against them, for example if you have run an alter table. Now those App's should be getting 710 errors, but until those applications actually end, the refcount for the DD entry will still be set to 1, or greater, which means the DD Entry cannot be cleaned out of the cache. I haven't tested the impact of an in-place alter though. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "tichman@excite.com" <tichman@excite.com> > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:39:20 AM > Subject: DD_HASHSIZE , DD_HASHMAX > > We are running 7.31.UD3 on Solaris 5.9.I am investigating the optimal > setting DD_HASHSIZE and DD_HASHMAX. Currenlty they are set at the > default (31 and 10).We have approximately 430 tables in the database > but when we run onstat -g dic I get 2400 data dictionary entries which > seems very high to me. I then noticed that there are multiple entries > for some of the tables in the onstat -g dic output. Is this normal? > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > > > > > --0-1394698818-1168958768=:58071 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > X-Google-AttachSize: 2029 > > <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">A few questions.<br><br>#1 How many Databases do you have in the instance.<br><br>#2 Do you perform any remote queries to other instances from the instance.<br><br>#3 How long has the instance been up.<br><br><br>Multiple copies of the same table usually indicates that you have multiple versions of the table, and applications still have cursors attached against them, for example if you have run an alter table. Now those App's&nbsp; should be&nbsp; getting 710 errors, but until those applications actually end, the refcount for the DD entry will still be set to 1, or greater, which means the DD Entry cannot be cleaned out of the cache. I haven't tested the impact of an in-place alter though.<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><br><div style="font-family: times new > roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: "tichman@excite.com" &lt;tichman@excite.com&gt;<br>To: informix-list@iiug.org<br>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:39:20 AM<br>Subject: DD_HASHSIZE , DD_HASHMAX<br><br><div>We are running 7.31.UD3 on Solaris 5.9.I am investigating the optimal<br>setting DD_HASHSIZE and DD_HASHMAX. Currenlty they are set at the<br>default (31 and 10).We have approximately 430 tables in the database<br>but when we run onstat -g dic I get 2400 data dictionary entries which<br>seems very high to me. I then noticed that there are multiple entries<br>for some of the tables in the onstat -g dic output. Is this normal?<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Informix-list mailing list<br>Informix-list@iiug.org<br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list">http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list</a><br></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>; > --0-1394698818-1168958768=:58071--