Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: can huge updates cause locks
What is your "hypothetical" explanation for why a single user with a 5000 row update causes ITL Waits and Latch Misses and "slowly but surely cripple the system" ? Are you sure about the "surely" ?
A 5000 row update isn't necessarily going to cripple your system. Many people run xthousands of rows updates frequently on databases.
Hemant
At 04:24 PM 08-03-04 +0530, you wrote:
>Hi,
>First of all let me clarify this is a Hypothecal Situation.
>Suppose there is a table x which houses important piece of transaction
>data.Now this box happens to be a HP-UX 11.11,Dual Proc,4GB RAM Oracle
>9.2.0.1 Box having 200 users.Now say one of the users suddenly at peak
>load period starts updating this table with 5000 new rows,my idea is
>it will cause immediate ITL Waits,Latch Misses and slowly but surely cripple
>the system.As the ITL waits will have a rippling effect I would expect
>ORA-60 to turn up in the alert<sid>.ora .
>
>Will you plz let me knw if I am correct or there is something I am missing
>alltogether.
>Thanks
>Deep
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
>put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
>--
>Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
>FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemant K Chitale
Oracle 9i Database Administrator Certified Professional
http://hkchital.tripod.com {last updated 24-Jan-04}
"If you wish to leave your footprints on the sand, do not drag your feet"
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Mon Mar 08 2004 - 07:34:51 CST
![]() |
![]() |