Thanks Niall.. I understand CPU seconds is depedent on # of cpus.. Usually if the cpus were consumed by SQLs (hash-joins,sorts, or I/Os), shouldn't the sql elapsed time also be approximately equal or more than DB CPU % (83% in this case).. I am lost on why sql elapsed time reports only 46% and there is nothing else (pl/sql elapsed time, parse time) that is significantly higher.. I guess , my question is.. can there be "DB CPU" slice thats not part of sql,pl/sql & parsing ? Thanks Venkat On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Niall Litchfield < niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On a machine with more than one 'CPU' you can spend more than 1 second on > cpu time for each second of elapsed time. > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Venkat Krish <venkat.lear@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > >> Hi - >> This is just a curious question that popped up my mind by looking at >> someone's AWR.. I dont have access to database and wont be able to run any >> related query or anything. >> >> The TimeModel statistics have been pasted here: >> http://pastebin.com/YZ7SRX0M >> >> >> The question is related to "DB CPU" metric .. >> >> Here is what I know or my thought process.. please correct me, if I am >> missing anything or incorrectly ruling out >> >> -- the SQL elapsed time accounts only to less than 50% (if there was a >> culprit sql or API, it should hv been counted against this.) >> -- parsing is near zero (so its not parsing cpu) >> -- there could have been no PL/SQL (looping with dbms_lock.sleep or >> anything similar) because PLSQL exec time is almost zero >> >> >> what could be causing this DB CPU.. ?? if the db is spending 83% on total >> db time cpu but doesnt correspond to sql or plsql elapsed time, is it a good >> or bad indicator? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Venkat >> >> PS: DB version : 11.2.0.2 running on Solaris >> >> >> > > > -- > Niall Litchfield > Oracle DBA > http://www.orawin.info >