Hmmmm, also running on 8.1.7.2 on HPUX 11, this comes back to me sub-second.
My explain plan pukes in TOAD, but that's a TOAD issue...everything looks
good in SQL*Plus.
1) Are you using CBO?
2) If "yes" from 1, verify that there are no stats gathered in SYS.
3) Try init.ora "optimizer_max_permutations = 2000". The default is "80000"
in 8 and 8i and "2000" in 9i. Aside from cursor_sharing=force, that's the
only parameter I have that I think could affect parse times that severely.
I also have:
optimizer_index_caching = 90
optimizer_index_cost_adj = 50
in my init.ora, in case those might also somehow affect parse time. I
wouldn't think it would in this case, since these should be CBO-only and
there shouldn't be stats on the data dictionary.
HTH! GL! :)
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Nope, Oracle 8.1.7.2 on HP-UX 11. 148 seconds
on the wall clock to parse:
select
null as table_cat, owner as table_schem, table_name,
0 as NON_UNIQUE, null as index_qualifier, null as index_name,
0 as type, 0 as ordinal_position, null as column_name, null as asc_or_desc,
num_rows as cardinality, blocks as pages, null as filter_condition
from all_tables
where table_name = 'INDEXENTRIES'
union
select null as table_cat, i.owner as table_schem, i.table_name,
decode (i.uniqueness, 'UNIQUE', 0, 1), null as index_qualifier,
i.index_name, 1 as type, c.column_position as ordinal_position,
c.column_name, null as asc_or_desc, i.distinct_keys as cardinality,
i.leaf_blocks as pages, null as filter_condition
from all_indexes i,
all_ind_columns c
where i.table_name = 'INDEXENTRIES' and
i.index_name = c.index_name and
i.table_owner = c.table_owner and
i.table_name = c.table_name and
i.owner = c.index_owner
order by non_unique, type, index_name, ordinal_position
----
Matt Adams - GE Appliances - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Their fundamental design flaws are completely
hidden by their superficial design flaws.
- Douglas Adams
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:28 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Matt,
Is it Oracle 9?
If yes, time is in microseconds.
Alex.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
why would a query take 148 seconds to
parse? It is a two way union
where the first half is going against all_tables
and the second half is a join
between all_indexes and all_ind_columns.
The shared pool has 50M large parts of it are
free. I generated a 10046 (level 12) trace, and I just
don't see anything out of whack, except of the
c=14868 in the PARSE #1 line.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Jesse, Rich
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
