RE: DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT
- From: <Christopher.Taylor2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <dombrooks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:00:53 -0600
Dom,
Thanks for the tips - I think force_matching_signature may be the way to go as
that makes the analysis SQL easier to manage to gather the data I'm looking for.
Thanks again.
Chris
From: Taylor Christopher - Nashville
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:41 AM
To: 'Dominic Brooks'
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT
Yep that's the way I was leaning - using a substr match on the first 800 chars
for now. I may have to limit that to less. I need to go back and check on the
force_matching_signature though.
Thanks
Chris
From: Dominic Brooks [mailto:dombrooks@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Taylor Christopher - Nashville
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT
For statements that differ only by literals then you can use
force_matching_signature as a grouping mechanism.
Otherwise, if you have statements where the core statement is the same but have
additional predicates then I think you'll have to resort to string matching on
substr or alike.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
