Getting a -1 value for one metric when you get an actual value for the other
is normal behavior. Setting one metric to a value causes the other to
be -1.
As to your actual values, I'm puzzled. Your warning and alarm settings seem
to be very low. Ithought the one wants to know when cluster ratio is =< 80
(percent) so 10% would mean you really don't care. I may be wrong as to how
to specify for storage manager but I know that it's the value 80 that the
optimizer will start to question whether to use the index or not.
With normal stats, a value of 4 would mean that your index clusters to 4% of
the rowid sequence which basically means the clustering is useless. But atr
4%, you woulf get your warnings and alrms because they're set to 10%.
For detailed stats., the value means 0.223 as the cluster factor is between
0 and 1. I'm puzzled, 4% normal and 22.3% (0,223) detailed. You're right
you may have found a bug !!!!
Regards, Pierre.

Signature
Pierre Saint-Jacques
SES Consultants Inc.
514-737-4515
> With normal stats I get a cluster ration of 4 and cluster factor of
> -1.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks,
> JD
dunleav1 - 08 Mar 2007 19:54 GMT
I am using the default thresholds for Storage Management.
I am seeing this same issue on another database V9.1 SP2 - just for
another object.
With normal stats the cluster ratio is 1 (first example) or 3 (this
example). The Cluster ratio warning threshold is 20 and the alarm
threshold is 10.
So these values are failing below the alarm threshold, the monitor is
setting an alarm, so the monitor is working correctly.
Basically I have a table (with high # of rows and columns) with six
indexes on it. One index is showing up with a low cluster ratio (1 or
3). The other indexes on the table have cluster ratios at 100. I ran
a reorg on the table and the indexexes.
My guess is that the index is not used by the optimizer because of the
structure of the index and the data distribution within it.
I'm going to retract my statement that it's a bug. I'll have to
investigate it out closer.