Re: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Tanel Põder <tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx>
- To: "ORACLE-L" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:35:29 -0600
Hi,
select i.obj#, i.flags, u.name, o.name
from sys.obj$ o, sys.user$ u, sys.ind$ i
where (bitand(i.flags, 256) = 256 or bitand(i.flags, 512) = 512)
and (not((i.type# = 9) and bitand(i.flags,8) = 8))
and o.obj#=i.obj#
and o.owner# = u.user#
That might be SMON trying to search for some work to do regularly, but hitting
a bad execution plan when doing dictionary queries. Unfortunately the catalog
views don't have ind$.flags bits representing 256 and 512 documented, so I
don't know what is it searching for. Maybe these have something to do with LOB
indexes and undo retention, but not sure.
Check if any of those three tables (or their corresponding indexes) are
analyzed - 9.2.0.4 isn't too good version to have data dictionary analyzed.
Tanel.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Wolfgang Breitling
- Re: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Wolfgang Breitling
- References:
- RE: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Ray Feighery
Other related posts:
- » Source of expensive SQL
- » RE: Source of expensive SQL
- » RE: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » RE: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- » Re: Source of expensive SQL
- Re: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Wolfgang Breitling
- Re: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Wolfgang Breitling
- RE: Source of expensive SQL
- From: Ray Feighery