RE: flush shared_pool and query performance
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:12:03 -0500
Message-ID: <OF7888D467.1AF9036C-ON86257420.0079E3D3-86257420.0079F3C1@discover.com>
Yes, the timing goes back to around 0.01s . Thank you, Mark
thank you
Gene Gurevich
"Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak_at_proqu est.com> To Sent by: "genegurevich_at_discover.com" oracle-l-bounce_at_f <genegurevich_at_discover.com>, reelists.org "oracle-l_at_freelists.org" <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> cc 04/03/2008 04:59 PM Subject RE: flush shared_pool and query performance Please respond to Mark.Bobak_at_proque st.com
Sure, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. As an added confirmation, if you have 0.01 secs, and then you flush and first execution is 0.3 secs, does the second execution after the flush go back to 0.01 secs? If so, then the difference is the hard parse.
-Mark
--
Mark J. Bobak
Senior Database Administrator, System & Product Technologies
ProQuest
789 E. Eisenhower, Parkway, P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346
+1.734.997.4059 or +1.800.521.0600 x 4059
mark.bobak_at_proquest.com
www.proquest.com
www.csa.com
ProQuest...Start here.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of genegurevich_at_discover.com
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:40 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: flush shared_pool and query performance
Hi all:
I am noticing that the same SQL executed before and after 'alter system
flush shared_pool' completes in VASTLY
different time - 0.01s before the command and 0.3s after the command. I
wonder why is that. When I flush the
shared_pool, the library cache is flushed and so my SQL needs to be
reparsed. Is that reasonable for parsing
to take 0.3s?
thank you
Gene Gurevich
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Apr 03 2008 - 17:12:03 CDT