Re: enq: TX - index contention
- From: K Gopalakrishnan <kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Les.Hollis@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:08:25 +0530
Les:
Forgot to mention.That note is very old, written based on Oracle 8. As
Mark pointed in the ealier message, 2 ITLs created/block from oracle
9 onwards.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:00 +0530, K Gopalakrishnan <kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Les:
>
> I think you are totally confused here. ITLs work at block level. Not
> at segment level. Just for your understanding about ITLs and
> Datablocks /transactions have a look at this note.
> http://www.revealnet.com/newsletter/Transaction%20Management.htm
>
>
> --
--
Best Regards,
K Gopalakrishnan
Co-Author: Oracle Wait Interface, Oracle Press 2004
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007222729X/
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- References:
- RE: enq: TX - index contention
- From: Hollis, Les
- Re: enq: TX - index contention
- From: K Gopalakrishnan
Other related posts:
- » enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » RE: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- » Re: enq: TX - index contention
- RE: enq: TX - index contention
- From: Hollis, Les
- Re: enq: TX - index contention
- From: K Gopalakrishnan