Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- From: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:47:36 -0000
Ian,
Do you have any mechanism for correcting
the query time; or is it a random number ?
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
March 2004 Hotsos Symposium - The Burden of Proof
Dynamic Sampling - an investigation
March 2004 Charlotte OUG (www.cltoug.org) CBO Tutorial
April 2004 Iceland
June 2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacGregor, Ian A." <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> The ORA-01555 error indicates you need to p the value of the
UNDO_RETENTION parameter. You MAY also need to increase the UNDO tablespace
size. The error does not report the "Query Duration" accurately.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guang Mei [mailto:gmei@xxxxxxxxxx]
>
> ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query Duration=199335 sec, SCN:
> 0x0000.01db218e):
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
- » Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i