RE: Application waiting for a user lock.

  • From: "Chitale, Hemant K" <Hemant-K.Chitale@xxxxxx>
  • To: "tim@xxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:56:36 +0000

Maybe it is multiple sessions running (requesting/waiting) concurrently  (e.g. 
60 sessions with 60second wait requests).
Would the REQUEST result in CPU usage ?

Would a SLEEP call result in CPU usage ?

Hemant K Chitale


From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 11:57 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Application waiting for a user lock.

Mladen,

The REQUEST procedure in the DBMS_LOCK 
package<http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e40758/d_lock.htm#ARPLS66779>
 has a TIMEOUT parameter which by default is set to "indefinite", but can be 
set to a specified number of seconds.  It appears that the developer set it to 
"60" from what you're showing here (i.e. 60 waits in 3,601 seconds).

Hope this helps...

-Tim



On 2/16/15 20:43, Mladen Gogala (Redacted sender 
mgogala@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mgogala@xxxxxxxxx> for DMARC) wrote:
The wait events look like this:
Event                                            Waits    Time (s)   (ms)   Time
----------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------ ------
PL/SQL lock timer                                   60       3,601  60012   52.0
CPU time                                                     3,233          46.7
db file sequential read                         97,875          75      1    1.1
control file sequential read                    13,019           5      0     .1
log file parallel write                          1,344           4      3

Obviously, the application is using DBMS_LOCK. Is there anything  that can be 
done to make it cheaper? Not only
is the whole thing horribly  slow, it also devours vast amounts of CPU.  I 
cannot go into the source, it's a 3rd party
application and someone discovered the keyword "WRAPPED". I've been looking for 
a hidden instance parameter
which would change the DBMS_LOCK behavior and make it cheaper. Any ideas?


--

Mladen Gogala

Oracle DBA

http://mgogala.freehostia.com


This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the 
sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of 
Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries at 
https://www.sc.com/en/incorporation-details.html.

Other related posts: