RE: flush shared_pool and query performance
- From: genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:18:57 -0500
Thanks, Brandon. I was doing that as a test to see what is an effect of the
hard parsing. I did not expect it
to be as significant
thank you
Gene Gurevich
"Allen, Brandon"
<Brandon.Allen@On
eNeck.com> To
<genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
04/03/2008 05:14 <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PM cc
Subject
RE: flush shared_pool and query
performance
Yes, I would say .3 seconds is reasonable for a hard parse - that's why
we have the shared pool and bind variables to minimize hard parsing.
Parse time depends on many things such as the complexity of the query,
number of tables joined, optimizer_max_permutations, contention for
latches, parsing and IO required for recursive queries on the DD, etc.
You might want to try restricting optimizer_max_permutations, especially
if you're in pre-9i where it used to default to 80,000 I believe. Maybe
check if you're doing dynamic sampling also.
Regards,
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Is that reasonable for parsing to take 0.3s?
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.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
