DB2 - Problem description
Problem IC62270 | Status: Closed |
DB2 LOAD ON RANGE PARTITIONED TABLE WITH LOCAL INDEX, PERFORMANCE ISSUE WITH LOAD REPLACE AND LOAD RESTART | |
product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / 970 - DB2 | |
Problem description: | |
The performance impact is as follows, when performing a load on a table with a reasonable number of range partitions, say 1000, the load mistakenly marks all indexes in error for each range partition. As the number of local indexes is at least equal to the number of range partitions, in this scenario 1000x1000 markings will occur when only 1000 need to occur. As a results a load of 3000 rows takes over 1 hour to complete when instead it should complete under five minutes. The load completes in under five minutes when the fix is applied. | |
Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * Version 9.7 All Platforms * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * A load replace or load restart of a load of 3000 rows takes * * over 1 hour to complete when instead it should complete * * under five minutes, when it is on a range partitioned table * * with local indices. The load completes in under five minutes * * when the fix is applied. This problem only becomes * * noticeable when we use local indices and range partitioning, * * with hundreds of ranges. * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Upgrade to Version 9.7 Fix Pack 1 or later. * **************************************************************** | |
Local Fix: | |
available fix packs: | |
DB2 Version 9.7 Fix Pack 1 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows | |
Solution | |
Performance problem was first fixed in Version 9.7 Fix Pack 1. At a minimum, this fix should be applied on the server. | |
Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 29.07.2009 05.02.2010 05.02.2010 |
Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
9.7.FP1 | |
Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) | |
9.7.0.1 |