RE: Strange wait for what should be a fast query
- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Charles Schultz" <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:56:07 -0700
I think you are interpreting that incorrectly. The e=42 shows the
elapsed time of the FETCH, then Oracle just sat there for 1843.75
seconds waiting for the next command from the client. I'm not sure why
the elapsed value from the SQL*Net WAIT event doesn't equal the
difference between the two timestamps though - seems like it should, at
least approximately. Not sure about the driver id, but found this in
Metalink Note 34395.1, which seems to show that yours is 'TCP\0' since
1413697536 = 0x54435000:
driver id
In Oracle8i onwards P1RAW can be decoded into ASCII characters
to give a clue as to which Net driver is used.
Eg: P1RAW=0x62657100 = 'beq\0' , P1RAW=0x54435000 = 'TCP\0' etc.
In earlier releases the value here is the value of the
disconnect function of the Net driver being used (which is not much
use).
________________________________
From: Charles Schultz [mailto:sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:20 PM
To: Allen, Brandon
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Strange wait for what should be a fast query
I thought about that, and have asked to see the source code. However,
the timestamp from the FETCH to the WAIT shows a difference of
2906027257. Doesn't that mean that it waited that long after the FETCH
was issued? Or am I interpreting that incorrectly?
And a bonus question: how do you decode the driver id? It is not hex.
Convert to hex from decimal?
On 12/19/06, Allen, Brandon <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It looks like the query is fast - only .01 seconds, but Oracle
was just waiting for the application to issue the fetch call. Is there
something delaying the fetch, like the user clicking on the [Next
Record] button, or something like that.
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your
employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as
neither given nor endorsed by it.
--
Charles Schultz
Other related posts:
