Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: 10046 event is useless in 9.2.0.4 version for response time measuring !!!
Cary,
Thanks for your replay,
But that the …
How to discover performance problems on 9.2.0.4, then?
It is seem that 9.2.0.5 not the option ;(
.
Is to ask backport is a good idea in this case, I wonder.
Does some body in the list have tried it?
.
Cary, that is your experience? How to get around it?
.
PS Forgot to mention, test has been executed on the one machine. Two
separate OH. RH AS 3.0.
Regards,
Jurijs
9268222
"Cary Millsap" <cary.millsap_at_hotsos.com>
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
02.08.2004 18:07
Please respond to oracle-l
To: <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> cc: Subject: RE: 10046 event is useless in 9.2.0.4 version forresponse time measuring !!!
Jurijs,
You've identified the bug correctly. The response time impact will vary =
from
virtually zero to the 6X number you've discovered, or even worse. (The
problem is the worst for sessions that nest NESTED LOOPS row source
operations inside each other.)
It's a bug. Fix it. The problem is fixed in 9.2.0.5.
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
* Nullius in verba *
Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 8/10 Boston, 9/14 San Francisco, 10/5 =
Charlotte
- SQL Optimization 101: 7/26 Washington DC, 8/16 Minneapolis, 9/20 =
Hartford
- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org =
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of J.Velikanovs_at_alise.lv
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:19 AM
To: 'oracle-l_at_freelists.org '
Subject: 10046 event is useless in 9.2.0.4 version for response time
measuring !!!
My regards to all,
At the moment I have impression that, 10046 event is useless in 9.2.0.4=20
version for response time measuring!
I have tied to run loop.sql (see below for full text) with and without=20
10046 event on 9.2.0.4 & 9.2.0.5.
The results scared me.
Take a look:
.
9.2.0.4=20
without 6,45 sec=20
!!!!!!!!!!! with 37,36 sec=20
.
9.2.0.5
without 5,48 sec=20
!!!!!!!!!!! with 7,19 sec
.
After short investigation it is appears that it is BUG 3009359.
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/showdoc?db=3DNOT&id=3D3009359.8=
No one-off fix on 9.2.0.4.
.
So it's appears, that 10046 is useless on 9.2.0.4, because SQL Trace=20
itself takes 580% of response time.
.
Any comments?!
Have any body solution for this issue.
.
As appears from dictation from this list, to go to 9.2.0.5 is not good=20
idea, because of instability and other issues.
Thanks in advance,
Jurijs
TKPROF output
call count cpu elapsed disk query current =
rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------=20
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: SYS (recursive depth: 1)
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT AGGREGATE (cr=3D132000 r=3D0 w=3D0 time=3D36185613 us)
10001000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TESTLIO (cr=3D132000 r=3D0 w=3D0=20
time=3D28015044 us)
10001000 INDEX RANGE SCAN TESTLIO_I1 (cr=3D25000 r=3D0 w=3D0 =
time=3D9976625=20
us)(object id 6318)
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: SYS (recursive depth: 1)
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT AGGREGATE
10001000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TESTLIO
10001000 INDEX RANGE SCAN TESTLIO_I1 (object id 6289)
RAW portion of TRC file
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D
(f,'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa');=
end loop;
end;
/
create index testlio_i1 on testlio (n) tablespace users;
Jurijs
9268222
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://otn.oracle.com/ocm/jvelikanovs.html
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Mon Aug 02 2004 - 10:50:18 CDT
![]() |
![]() |