CA IDMS IUA EIUA

Expand all | Collapse all

Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

  • 1.  Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    Posted 06-03-2013 03:39 PM
    How do you calculate the space requirements for a user-owned index?

    We have a program that calculates the space needed for a system-owned index. Would that be close enough?

    Kay Rozeboom
    Information Technology Enterprise
    Iowa Department of Administrative Services
    Telephone: 515.281.6139 Fax: 515.281.6137
    Email: Kay.Rozeboom@iowa.gov


  • 2.  RE: Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    Posted 06-03-2013 05:28 PM
    I would think that the existing calculations used for system-owned indexes should give you a reasonable number for the overall amount of space that you might use within the area. However with user-owned indexes you have to remember that each owner becomes the owner of an index structure. The SR8 structure is stored as if it is a VIA record of the owner so you are also increasing the cluster size of the owner records. I would at least determine the average length of the owner's set in terms of data records and use that number as input to the index formulas to get an idea of how much each owner's data cluster is going to grow. Then use the standard rules that you employ to determine page size given the current cluster sizes. Where you might have just allocated more pages to accomodate a new system-owned index you might want to consider increasing page sizes of existing pages so that the larger cluster sizes can be accomodated.


  • 3.  RE: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user

    Posted 06-04-2013 08:52 AM
    Thanks, Dick. Can I ask a couple more questions?

    1) What do you recommend for determining the best IBC size when there is a lot of variation in set length? If the IBC is too large, we will waste a lot of space on the small set occurrences. If it’s too small, we risk the overhead of splitting and spawning on the large set occurrences.

    2) Is there any point in specifying a displacement value? It seems to me that we would be better off with a displacement of zero so that the SR8’s would be stored on the same page as the owner record.

    Kay Rozeboom
    Information Technology Enterprise
    Iowa Department of Administrative Services
    Telephone: 515.281.6139 Fax: 515.281.6137
    Email: Kay.Rozeboom@iowa.gov

    From: CA IDMS (IUA EIUA) Global User Community [mailto:CommunityAdmin@communities-mail.ca.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 4:28 PM
    To: mb.15281481.101138897@myca-email.ca.com
    Subject: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    I would think that the existing calculations used for system-owned indexes should give you a reasonable number for the overall amount of space that you might use within the area. However with user-owned indexes you have to remember that each owner becomes the owner of an index structure. The SR8 structure is stored as if it is a VIA record of the owner so you are also increasing the cluster size of the owner records. I would at least determine the average length of the owner's set in terms of data records and use that number as input to the index formulas to get an idea of how much each owner's data cluster is going to grow. Then use the standard rules that you employ to determine page size given the current cluster sizes. Where you might have just allocated more pages to accomodate a new system-owned index you might want to consider increasing page sizes of existing pages so that the larger cluster sizes can be accomodated.
    Posted by:dick.weiland
    --
    CA Communities Message Boards
    101141437
    mb.15281481.101138897@myca-email.ca.com<mailto:mb.15281481.101138897@myca-email.ca.com>
    https://communities.ca.com


  • 4.  RE: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user

    Posted 06-04-2013 05:05 PM
    1. I guess the first question really revolves around what is a small set and what is a large set. Remember that the Level 0 SR8 records are reduced in size to only hold the number of entries that exist within the SR8 occurrence. As a result an IBC of 100 with only one entry will have only enough space for the SR8 header and one entry so there is no great amount of space wasted. If a large percentage of the sets have a small number of members you may wish to try and optimize the larger set occurrences with the anticipation that the small sets will have a single Level 0 SR8 and not even need multiple levels of SR8 records.

    2. In regards to the use of PAGE DISPLACEMENT for user-owned indexes I'd forget that the parameter exists. This parameter is designed to allow for separation of the intermediate SR8s from the Level 0 occurrences. However it is very possible that displacing one set occurence's Level 0 SR8s may place them on the page(s) used by another owner's intermediate SR8s generally defeating the preceived advantage of the parameter. Linda just published a paper on indexing page displacement about a week ago on this site's blogs and this topic should be within that material. You might get some advantage if the owner's area is sparsely populated but in most cases I believe that it buys no benefit.


  • 5.  RE: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user

    Posted 06-05-2013 08:24 AM
    Thank you, Dick! I didn’t realize that the Level 0 SR8 records start out so small. That makes this much easier.

    Kay Rozeboom
    Information Technology Enterprise
    Iowa Department of Administrative Services
    Telephone: 515.281.6139 Fax: 515.281.6137
    Email: Kay.Rozeboom@iowa.gov

    From: CA IDMS (IUA EIUA) Global User Community [mailto:CommunityAdmin@communities-mail.ca.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:05 PM
    To: mb.15281481.101147941@myca-email.ca.com
    Subject: RE: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user

    1. I guess the first question really revolves around what is a small set and what is a large set. Remember that the Level 0 SR8 records are reduced in size to only hold the number of entries that exist within the SR8 occurrence. As a result an IBC of 100 with only one entry will have only enough space for the SR8 header and one entry so there is no great amount of space wasted. If a large percentage of the sets have a small number of members you may wish to try and optimize the larger set occurrences with the anticipation that the small sets will have a single Level 0 SR8 and not even need multiple levels of SR8 records.

    2. In regards to the use of PAGE DISPLACEMENT for user-owned indexes I'd forget that the parameter exists. This parameter is designed to allow for separation of the intermediate SR8s from the Level 0 occurrences. However it is very possible that displacing one set occurence's Level 0 SR8s may place them on the page(s) used by another owner's intermediate SR8s generally defeating the preceived advantage of the parameter. Linda just published a paper on indexing page displacement about a week ago on this site's blogs and this topic should be within that material. You might get some advantage if the owner's area is sparsely populated but in most cases I believe that it buys no benefit.
    Posted by:dick.weiland
    --
    CA Communities Message Boards
    101150481
    mb.15281481.101147941@myca-email.ca.com<mailto:mb.15281481.101147941@myca-email.ca.com>
    https://communities.ca.com


  • 6.  RE: Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    Posted 06-03-2013 05:32 PM
    Kay, I guess I'm pretty bad at using these message boards. Check out the thread for Arch Consulting's anniversary. I put a response to your index sizing questions there by mistake. Oh well, congratulations to Arch Consulting!


  • 7.  RE: Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    Posted 06-04-2013 09:24 AM
    HI just as a general observation, do the rules from the 1970s still apply?

    We live in a world of tera giga peta bytes etc. and increased processing power.
    expoentially many times the availability of the 1970'S, and also the physical hardware technology is very different.

    So being overly precise on calculations, will stilll make a significant difference in performance etc....

    What are some bottlenecks which still exist today in terms of IDMS performance issues.., if they are not defined correctly.?


  • 8.  RE: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user

    Posted 06-04-2013 09:30 AM
    No – the rules from the 1970s do not apply anymore – nowadays LEISURE SUITS ARE NEVER IN STYLE!!!!!

    Chris hoelscher
    Technology Architect | Database Infrastructure Services
    Technology Solution Services
    [Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CD13D7.1A57CAF0]
    123 East Main Street |Louisville, KY 40202
    choelscher@humana.com
    Humana.com
    (502) 476-2538 – office
    (502) 714-8615 - blackberry
    Keeping CAS and Metavance safe for all HUMANAty

    From: CA IDMS (IUA EIUA) Global User Community [mailto:CommunityAdmin@communities-mail.ca.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:24 AM
    To: mb.15281481.101143445@myca-email.ca.com
    Subject: [DBA Issues - Open Forum] RE: Calculating space requirements for a user-owned index.

    HI just as a general observation, do the rules from the 1970s still apply?

    We live in a world of tera giga peta bytes etc. and increased processing power.
    expoentially many times the availability of the 1970'S, and also the physical hardware technology is very different.

    So being overly precise on calculations, will stilll make a significant difference in performance etc....

    What are some bottlenecks which still exist today in terms of IDMS performance issues.., if they are not defined correctly.?
    Posted by:acp
    --
    CA Communities Message Boards
    101145985
    mb.15281481.101143445@myca-email.ca.com<mailto:mb.15281481.101143445@myca-email.ca.com>
    http://communities.ca.com

    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
    and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this material/information in error,
    please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.