RE: Library Cache question
- From: Martin Brown <martinfbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:06:38 -0500
Thanks for the reply, Gentlemen. We use "FORCE". I guess my next step is to
test "SIMILAR" at some point and compare the results.
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:56:35 -0600Subject: Re: Library Cache questionFrom:
cary.millsap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: martinfbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx(to fortify Jared's point...)...Because it just doesn't
make any sense for the database to keep a cursor that doesn't ever get reused.
And what kind of session is going to reuse a SQL statement with string literals
boiled in for, say part numbers or date values with 1-second granularity?Cary
Millsaphttp://method-r.comhttp://carymillsap.blogspot.com
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Martin Brown <martinfbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... Unfortunately, our developers ar not fans of bind variables either.
You may have nailed it right there.The high miss rate would seem to be an
indication of that.Jared StillCertifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl
Evangelist
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009
Other related posts:
