I just tested the result cache for any effect (11gR1 on Sun-Blade-T6340, Solaris10) -- no_result_cache alter system flush shared_pool; System altered. select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'dtda63h3189hv'; no rows selected select /* no_result_cache */ 1 from dual; 1 ---------- 1 select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'dtda63h3189hv'; SQL_ID ELAPSED_TIME ------------- ------------ dtda63h3189hv 97707 select /* no_result_cache */ 1 from dual; 1 ---------- 1 select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'dtda63h3189hv'; SQL_ID ELAPSED_TIME ------------- ------------ dtda63h3189hv 97707 -- result_cache alter system flush shared_pool; System altered. select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'f3cqkqf9272pp'; no rows selected select /* result_cache */ 1 from dual; 1 ---------- 1 select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'f3cqkqf9272pp'; SQL_ID ELAPSED_TIME ------------- ------------ f3cqkqf9272pp 32253 select /* berx1 */ 1 from dual; 1 ---------- 1 select SQL_ID, elapsed_time from v$sql 2 where sql_id = 'f3cqkqf9272pp'; SQL_ID ELAPSED_TIME ------------- ------------ f3cqkqf9272pp 32253 here, with and without result_cache the 2nd run of the statement is faster than ELAPSED_TIME can show. Does anyone know a better method to measure here? On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 21:48, Martin Berger <martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > Toon, Andre, > > can you test it, please? > I'm not sure if the additional code and SGA access in result cache improves > the query. > > (ok, we are now on a measurement issue: how can we measure such a fast sql? > any good idea?) > > > > Am 11.03.2010 um 21:41 schrieb Toon Koppelaars: > > Any method to make it even faster? >> > > Use the query result cache hint? > > >