Re: Undo Usage and Read consistency - ORA-1555

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Nancy Iles <nancy_iles_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, the there is an index on CONFIRMATION_NO and I have found that
> _OPTIM_PEEK_USER_BINDS=FALSE on all 6 RAC nodes. So, now on to research the
> other suggestions! Thanks to everyone for your input.
>
> Nancy
>
> ________________________________
> > From: jkstill_at_gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:56:04 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Undo Usage and Read consistency - ORA-1555
> > To: nancy_iles_at_hotmail.com
> > CC: cicciuxdba_at_gmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Nancy Iles> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We have sporadic ora-1555 on an exceptionally simple statement that
> occurs frequently in the application. How can you analyze why this tiny,
> simple statement is causing an ORA-1555? The statement is:
> >
> >
> >
> > SELECT RESV_NAME_ID , RESORT FROM RESERVATION_NAME WHERE CONFIRMATION_NO
> = :1
> >
> >
> >
> > Is an appropriate index being used by the SELECT?
> >
> > Normally I would expect to see something such as CONFIRMATION_NO to
> > be accessed via indexed lookup, but it doesn't hurt to confirm that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Barring that, have you tried running a 10046 trace on that statement so
> > you can see what is taking place to satisfy the query?
> >
> > Lots of guessing here, because there isn't really much to go on in this
> post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jared
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290--
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l