Gee, I guess I should have read Mladen's message before posting! He already pretty much covered it! -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Mladen Gogala Sent: Wed 9/15/2004 12:05 AM To: mrichard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l Cc:=09 Subject: Re: Parallel query on when it's not supposed to be (?) On 09/14/2004 10:03:10 PM, Mark Richard wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > I just wanted to pose a question to anyone on the list (particular the = wait > event guru's like Cary)... Event guru? That's what Cary is? Hmmm, not exactly the expression that I'd use. >=20 > Eliminating parallel query because you are seeing waits for it sounds = to me > a little like tuning the BCHR. I can't help but wonder if waiting for = a > parallel query is still the quickest way to get things done? Would = killing > the parallel query effectively move the waits to another category = without > achieving any real gain? If the instance is OLTP with several hundreds of concurrent users, you = definitely don't want PQ utilized by users, on regular basis, because it would = quickly=20 drain your machine resources. If a full table scan somehow makes it into = production, and it happens even to the best of us, then you want to minimize the = damage and not resolve it by devoting enormous resources to it, thus starving = everybody=20 else of CPU power. PQ is not a magic potion thad druid Getafix used to = cook (I apologize to my American friends who have never heard of Asterix and = Obelix) to increase power of the tiny Gaul warrior, PQ is a tool that has its = place, primarily in the batch and DW systems. Enabling PQ on a busy OLTP = instance is something that can be compared to another French comic, namely Gaston. = There are many French speaking people on this list, they may explain to you = everything about Gaston Lagaffe.=20 --=20 Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l