On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Chris Taylor <christopherdtaylor1994@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > Also, when I tested it out, elapsed time jumped from 1.8 Seconds to 26.845 > seconds per execution and used 32 parallel processors! (I definitely > understand this - way too many parallel processes and the overhead involved > increased the total execution time). I don't think a SQL with an elapsed time is necessarily a good candidate for parallel queries. > > Anyone want to help me understand why it came up with a Parallel SQL Profile > recommendation in the first place? SQL Tuning Advisor was grasping at straws? :) Probably better just to determine where time is being spent and where it can possibly be tuned. If you want to run it through a tool, how about giving SQLT a go? It provides you with some real data that you can use to come up with a better guess than 96.52% Benefit :) Andy K -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l