Re: Performance Problem
- From: "Limin Guo" <lguo.oracle@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:14:06 -0500
Thanks for your information, Nuno.
We upgraded Peoplesoft databases from 9.2.0 to Oracle 10.2.0.2 about a year
ago. During the testing phase, I found that I had to set the following
hidden parameter to make the application running smoothly. After the
10.2.0.3 patchset was applied to those databases in , I had not rechecked if
any of the following parameters need to be adjusted.
*._complex_view_merging=false
*._gby_hash_aggregation_enabled=FALSE
*._optimizer_cost_based_transformation='off'
*._unnest_subquery=false
Limin Guo.
On 11/4/07, Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Alex Gorbachev wrote,on my timestamp of 5/11/2007 4:28 AM:
>
> > Thanks Wolfgang. Sounds encouraging.
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2007 11:03 AM, Wolfgang Breitling <breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >>I have worked with several Peoplesoft databases running the gamut
> >>from HR, SA (Student Admin), Financials/Supply Chain and EPM on
> >>Oracle 9i and 10g and none of them has optimizer_features_enable
> >>"backdated". We set specific _ parameters though:
> >>_unnest_subquery=false
> >>_complex_view_merging=false
> >>_gby_hash_aggregation_enabled = false ( nothing to do with
> >>Peoplesoft but the default true can produce wrong results ).
>
>
> Nearly missed this one.
> We're now on 10.2.0.3, after a bad experience with 10.2.0.2
> and .48.10 Peopletools.
> we still use _unnest_subquery for the darn date range subqueries
> in Peoplesoft but
> _gby_hash_aggregation_enabled is not
> needed in 10.2.0.3: the bug that caused that problem
> was fixed in this release. I have confirmed this
> with a query that caused the problem in 10.2.0.2 and
> it is indeed gone.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in showery Sydney, Australia
> dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Limin Guo.
Other related posts:
