RE: flush shared_pool and query performance
- From: genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: Mark.Bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:12:03 -0500
Yes, the timing goes back to around 0.01s . Thank you, Mark
thank you
Gene Gurevich
"Bobak, Mark"
<Mark.Bobak@proqu
est.com> To
Sent by: "genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
oracle-l-bounce@f <genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
reelists.org "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
04/03/2008 04:59
PM Subject
RE: flush shared_pool and query
performance
Please respond to
Mark.Bobak@proque
st.com
Sure, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. As an added confirmation,
if you have 0.01 secs, and then you flush and first execution is 0.3 secs,
does the second execution after the flush go back to 0.01 secs? If so,
then the difference is the hard parse.
-Mark
--
Mark J. Bobak
Senior Database Administrator, System & Product Technologies
ProQuest
789 E. Eisenhower, Parkway, P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346
+1.734.997.4059 or +1.800.521.0600 x 4059
mark.bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.proquest.com
www.csa.com
ProQuest...Start here.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:40 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: flush shared_pool and query performance
Hi all:
I am noticing that the same SQL executed before and after 'alter system
flush shared_pool' completes in VASTLY
different time - 0.01s before the command and 0.3s after the command. I
wonder why is that. When I flush the
shared_pool, the library cache is flushed and so my SQL needs to be
reparsed. Is that reasonable for parsing
to take 0.3s?
thank you
Gene Gurevich
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
