>The problem with 9.2.0.4 is measured in hours at worst. The problem with >being tricked by V$ data is often measurable in months. . I haven't mentioned to use V$ :))))) in my post. It is seems, you so often have told peoples that Method R is better then Method C, that this is automatic answer from your side ;) I not intended to declare that I am going to use V$. I just wonder, that so stupid thing can occur in release of Oracle, which is so popular and before I have discovered this issue, were default chose that I suggest to customers to use. . >I'm not sure whether there's a 9.2.0.4 back-port available. It's a good >question to ask Oracle. There is no one-off patch for this issue, at least publicly, available from metalink. Mogen! Could you please comment on that? Is it possible to ask Ora development thought your channels? On 02.08.2004 19:09:21 oracle-l-bounce wrote: >Jurijs, > >Even if something takes 6x longer to run the one time you trace it, it's >still better to have the detailed 10046 data than risk being tricked by = >the >aggregation problems introduced by using V$ data. > >The problem with 9.2.0.4 is measured in hours at worst. The problem with >being tricked by V$ data is often measurable in months. > >I'm not sure whether there's a 9.2.0.4 back-port available. It's a good >question to ask Oracle. >=20 > >Cary Millsap >Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. >http://www.hotsos.com >* Nullius in verba * > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------