May be anybody knows how to trace when rc invalidates and why? Event 43905 didn't help because it for result cache in sql namespace. And i don't know how to use event 43906. We created SR, but i don't think, that it will help shortly. 02.08.2012 1:25 "Sayan Malakshinov" <xt.and.r@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, when resuls exceeding space, they are flushed out from cache, but > not invalidated. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is there any chance you are exceeding the allocated result cache space? > > > > Regards, > > > > mwf > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > On Behalf Of Sayan Malakshinov > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:35 PM > > To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Cases when oracle invalidates result_cache results without any > > changes in objects? > > > > Hi all! > > > > On our production servers we have simple function with result_cache. > > And its results frequently invalidates without any changes in table or > > function. > > I found only 2 cases when oracle invalidates result_cache results without > > any changes in table: > > 1. "select for update" from this table with commit; 2. deletion of unrelated > > rows from parent table if there is unindexed foreign key with "on delete > > cascade". > > > > I test it on 11.2.0.1, 11.2.0.3, on solaris x64 and windows. > > Test cases: > > http://www.xt-r.com/2012/07/when-oracle-invalidates-resultcache.html > > > > But none of them can be the cause of our situation: we have no unindexed fk, > > and even if i lock all rows with "select for update", it still does not stop > > invalidating. > > In what other cases this happens? Am I right that the oracle does not track > > any changes, but the captures of the locks and "commits"? > > > > > > -- Best regards, Sayan Malakshinov Oracle perfomance tuning engineer PromSvyazBank malakshinovss@xxxxxxxxx -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l