ADDM Report for Task 'TASK_16041' --------------------------------- Analysis Period --------------- AWR snapshot range from 15807 to 15816. Time period starts at 24-JAN-16 01.14.26 AM Time period ends at 24-JAN-16 10.00.37 AM Analysis Target --------------- Database 'HAYASDE1' with DB ID 427399293. Database version 11.2.0.3.0. ADDM performed an analysis of instance hayasde1, numbered 1 and hosted at GISDB. Activity During the Analysis Period ----------------------------------- Total database time was 694 seconds. The average number of active sessions was .02. Summary of Findings ------------------- Description Active Sessions Recommendations Percent of Activity ------------------------------ ------------------- --------------- 1 "User I/O" wait Class 0 | 17.4 0 2 Hard Parse 0 | 16.83 0 3 Commits and Rollbacks 0 | 11.48 2 4 Session Connect and Disconnect 0 | 3.33 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Findings and Recommendations ---------------------------- Finding 1: "User I/O" wait Class Impact is 0 active sessions, 17.4% of total activity. ----------------------------------------------------- Wait class "User I/O" was consuming significant database time. Waits for I/O to temporary tablespaces were not consuming significant database time. The throughput of the I/O subsystem was not significantly lower than expected. The SGA was adequately sized. No recommendations are available. Finding 2: Hard Parse Impact is 0 active sessions, 16.83% of total activity. ------------------------------------------------------ Hard parsing of SQL statements was consuming significant database time. Hard parses due to cursor environment mismatch were not consuming significant database time. Hard parsing SQL statements that encountered parse errors was not consuming significant database time. Hard parses due to literal usage and cursor invalidation were not consuming significant database time. The SGA was adequately sized. No recommendations are available. Finding 3: Commits and Rollbacks Impact is 0 active sessions, 11.48% of total activity. ------------------------------------------------------ Waits on event "log file sync" while performing COMMIT and ROLLBACK operations were consuming significant database time. Recommendation 1: Application Analysis Estimated benefit is 0 active sessions, 11.48% of total activity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Action Investigate application logic for possible reduction in the number of COMMIT operations by increasing the size of transactions. Rationale The application was performing 15 transactions per minute with an average redo size of 9334 bytes per transaction. Recommendation 2: Host Configuration Estimated benefit is 0 active sessions, 11.48% of total activity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Action Investigate the possibility of improving the performance of I/O to the online redo log files. Rationale The average size of writes to the online redo log files was 5 K and the average time per write was 7 milliseconds. Rationale The total I/O throughput on redo log files was 0 K per second for reads and 2.5 K per second for writes. Rationale The redo log I/O throughput was divided as follows: 0% by RMAN and recovery, 100% by Log Writer, 0% by Archiver, 0% by Streams AQ and 0% by all other activity. Symptoms That Led to the Finding: --------------------------------- Wait class "Commit" was consuming significant database time. Impact is 0 active sessions, 11.48% of total activity. Finding 4: Session Connect and Disconnect Impact is 0 active sessions, 3.33% of total activity. ----------------------------------------------------- Session connect and disconnect calls were consuming significant database time. Recommendation 1: Application Analysis Estimated benefit is 0 active sessions, 3.33% of total activity. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Action Investigate application logic for possible reduction of connect and disconnect calls. For example, you might use a connection pool scheme in the middle tier. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Additional Information ---------------------- Miscellaneous Information ------------------------- Wait class "Application" was not consuming significant database time. Wait class "Concurrency" was not consuming significant database time. Wait class "Configuration" was not consuming significant database time. CPU was not a bottleneck for the instance. Wait class "Network" was not consuming significant database time. The database's maintenance windows were active during 54% of the analysis period.