RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl
Title: RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl What are the new things on oracle 8.1.7.2.1 patch. is't available on oracle downloads...? I'm much interested to know why should apply this patch is it for to rectify some bugs or something else... Rgds, Nirmal -Original Message- From: Hand, Michael T [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:41 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl Anand, I installed the same(? 8.1.7.2.1) patch about 2 weeks ago on Tru64 5.1 and did not get this result. However, I do remember this kind of result with a earlier upgrade to 8.0.x in the distant past. I believe it is a verbose linking option with no negative impact. Is svrmgrl the only executable responding like this. If so, try relinking. Mike Hand Polaroid Corp. -Original Message- I have just done installation of 8.1.7.0 on a Compaq Tru64 Unix box and applied 8.1.7.2 patch. There were no installation errors. When I start svrmgrl I see a line inst emulated pid=175364 --$ svrmgrl inst emulated pid=175364 svrmgrl va=0x11fffa358 pc=0x1205c0148 inst=0x327e0028 Oracle Server Manager Release 3.1.7.0.0 - Production Copyright (c) 1997, 1999, Oracle Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl
Anand, I installed the same(? 8.1.7.2.1) patch about 2 weeks ago on Tru64 5.1 and did not get this result. However, I do remember this kind of result with a earlier upgrade to 8.0.x in the distant past. I believe it is a verbose linking option with no negative impact. Is svrmgrl the only executable responding like this. If so, try relinking. Mike Hand Polaroid Corp. -Original Message- I have just done installation of 8.1.7.0 on a Compaq Tru64 Unix box and applied 8.1.7.2 patch. There were no installation errors. When I start svrmgrl I see a line "inst emulated pid=175364...". --$ svrmgrlinst emulated pid=175364 svrmgrl va=0x11fffa358 pc=0x1205c0148 inst=0x327e0028 Oracle Server Manager Release 3.1.7.0.0 - Production Copyright (c) 1997, 1999, Oracle Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl
Mike I found a note on metalink (124568.1) which explains the reason. Oracle 8.1.7.x products are not supported on chip prior to EV56. Thanks. Anand Prakash [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/01 12:40PM Anand, I installed the same(? 8.1.7.2.1) patch about 2 weeks ago on Tru64 5.1 and did not get this result. However, I do remember this kind of result with a earlier upgrade to 8.0.x in the distant past. I believe it is a verbose linking option with no negative impact. Is svrmgrl the only executable responding like this. If so, try relinking. Mike Hand Polaroid Corp. -Original Message- I have just done installation of 8.1.7.0 on a Compaq Tru64 Unix box and applied 8.1.7.2 patch. There were no installation errors. When I start svrmgrl I see a line "inst emulated pid=175364...". --$ svrmgrlinst emulated pid=175364 svrmgrl va=0x11fffa358 pc=0x1205c0148 inst=0x327e0028 Oracle Server Manager Release 3.1.7.0.0 - Production Copyright (c) 1997, 1999, Oracle Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl
Hello all, could someone please tell me why the procedure below(Author:Nick Butcher) takes less than a minuteona table with 50,000 rows and about 21 mins on a table with 235,000 rows?? Ihave created a bigger rollback segment to take care of this, but no improvement.where should i be looking for bottlenecks?? CREATE PROCUDURE DUPES_DELASBEGIN LOOPDELETE from fms_testwhere row_id in(select min(rowid)from fms_testgroup by sku_numhaving count (*) 1);EXIT WHEN SQL%NOTFOUNDEND LOOP;COMMIT;END; appreciate it.Sunil NookalaDellCorp.Austin, TX
RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl
Title: RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl Did you trace the statement? Send a trace to the list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:10 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Message at the start of svrmgrl Hello all, could someone please tell me why the procedure below (Author:Nick Butcher) takes less than a minute on a table with 50,000 rows and about 21 mins on a table with 235,000 rows?? I have created a bigger rollback segment to take care of this, but no improvement. where should i be looking for bottlenecks?? CREATE PROCUDURE DUPES_DEL AS BEGIN LOOP DELETE from fms_test where row_id in(select min(rowid) from fms_test group by sku_num having count (*) 1); EXIT WHEN SQL%NOTFOUND END LOOP; COMMIT; END; appreciate it. Sunil Nookala DellCorp. Austin, TX
