Re: Defragmenting table

Len,
Yes it is a 'wider' table than the others, (it has 10 columns of 2000 chars).
But how can I get around this problem, i.e. how can I change the SGA once and for all or work out the size it should be. Thanks.

In article <39ce4ece.14800031_at_125.0.0.1>,   lfc_at_zoom.co.uk (Leonard F Clark) wrote:
> Florent,
>
> Is this table significantly *wider* than the others (i.e. does it have
> a lot of columns, or some very large columns.
>
> We have found that a count(*) pulls the dictionary cache for that
> table (I think - it was a while ago and may have been some other part
> of the SGA). So one possible explanation is that a component of the
> SGA is sized too small.
>
> Len
>
> >Hi there,
> >I hope that someone could help me with a little problem.
> >I often have to do a query on a table, +/-30000 rows, but for some
> >reason the system takes between 10 to 40 secs to return from the
 select
> >count(*), statement, (other tables are 5 times the size and 3 times
> >faster).
> >There are 2 indexes and 2 primary keys. The size of the table would
> >indicate that it should be very quick.
> >For the purpose of the application I have to do a select count(*)
 often
> >as the exact number of rows varies from time to time, does any one
 know
> >a better way of doing it or a SQL statement that would defrag the
 table.
> >Any help would be great, (and would make me look great at work).
> >Thanks for all the help you can give.
> >Florent.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Mon Sep 25 2000 - 02:03:31 CDT