RE: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??

I know exactly what you're talking about. You can say v$sql in Oracle 9i and 
older can contain information about parent cursors (or cursor heads as some 
people call) and not child cursors, as in the case a DDL is run against the 
underlying table. In 10g, that would make both parent and child cursors 
disappear from v$sql instead of zero'ing out the fields representing heap 6.

Nevertheless saying v$sql can contain objects not in shared pool is not correct.

Yong Huang

--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Allen, Brandon <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Allen, Brandon <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??
> To: "yong321@xxxxxxxxx" <yong321@xxxxxxxxx>, "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 10:33 PM
>
> I believe it's partially possible - some of the cursor
> may be in the shared pool, while other parts may be aged
> out, for example it could appear in v$sql, but not in
> v$sqlplan - maybe that's what the OP was getting at. 
> This document explains what I'm talking about in terms
> of heap 0 vs. heap 6 starting on page 8:
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/manageability/database/pdf/ow05/PS_S003_274003_106-1_FIN_v2.pdf
> 
> Regards,
> Brandon
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yong
> Huang
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:55 PM
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??
> 
> > *But i am still not clear, someone told me v$sql may
> contains
> > objects not exists in Shared pool, which i am also not
> clear,
> 
> That's not possible. Where did you read that?


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

Other related posts: