I have to admit that I wasn't thinking about replying
to your comment when I sent this email. However,
I think you are correct - there is an effect of extra
items not being releasable from the shared pool
when cursor_space_for_time is true. (From memory
of one of Steve's seminars, it is the Heap
I was the guy who asked that question long time ago, but I'm not sure
how exactly are sockets used. Socket is, essentially, a pipe. You must
have someone reading and someone writing it. That is not exactly what I'd
call an AST.
On 12/02/2003 01:39:28 PM, Tanel Poder wrote:
>
> > It's not being the
> It's not being the case. I would really, really like to
> know how does Oracle implement AST's?
There's no such thing you won't find from Ixora:
http://www.ixora.com.au/q+a/misc.htm
Search for AST :)
Tanel.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Tanel
> > > The educated person is not the person
> > > > who can answer the questions, but the
> > > > person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One-day tutorials:
> > > > http://www.jlcomp
t ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS -- RE: Parse Vs Execute
>
> Mladen,
>
> I don't think it's SMON who is coalescing free memory extents. I'm not
> entirely sure here, but I think if any server process explicitly frees a
> free
t; > Three-day seminar:
> > > see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
> > > UK___November
> > >
> > >
> > > The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
> > > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
> > >
> > >
&g
27; FAQ
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:29 PM
> >
> >
> > What
: Parse Vs Execute
Hmm. Yes, I think I need to look at
_row_cache_cursors. I do have a number of objects being pinned but
rather than using the $AD_TOP scripts I use querieson
V$DB_OBJECT_CACHE to identify frequenty executed procedures.HemantAt
12:54 AM 02-12-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hi! Low
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS -- RE: Parse Vs Execute
CURSOR_SPACE_FOR_TIME is FALSE.
This is an Oracle Apps R11 install.
Hemant
At 05:29 AM 30-11-03 -0800, you wrote:
What's the value for
vember 30, 2003 1:29 PM
>
>
> What's the value for your cursor_space_for_time parameter?
>
> Tanel.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Hemant K Chitale
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:54 AM
> Subj
.
- Original Message -
From:
Hemant
K Chitale
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:14
PM
Subject: Re: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS --
RE: Parse Vs Execute
CURSOR_SPACE_FOR_TIME is FALSE.This is an
Oracle Apps R11 install.HemantAt 05:29 AM 30
unday, November 30, 2003 8:54 AM
Subject: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS -- RE: Parse Vs Execute
I have taken SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS from 0 to 100 to 400. On
occassion I still see
very high LIBRARY CACHE LATCH contention and am considering upping
the value again.
Currently, I set it at the Instance
Yes, you are correct. I was thinking of another cursor
parm; I should have checked first.
Jared
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 22:14, Richard Ji wrote:
> I thought the session_cached_cursors is dynamic and scope is
> session? This is on 8.1.7. I have used:
>
> alter session set session_cached_cursors=
for your cursor_space_for_time parameter?
Tanel.
- Original Message -
From: Hemant K Chitale
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:54 AM
Subject: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS -- RE: Parse Vs Execute
I have taken SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS from 0
How very irritating.
But I don't think you mentioned in earlier posts (or
at any rate I missed it) that you are running OPS/RAC,
and there could be all sorts of less well-known side
effects coming in there.
Could you also take a snapshot of the v$dlm_misc
figures, and the DLM-related session sta
Jared, Sorry for the confusion.
I did not use 'cached_cursors' as a hint. It is just to identify SQL
statements in tkrpof output.
I should have mentioned /*cached cursors 0 */ instead of /*+ cached cursors
0*/
Thanks
Sami
-Original Message-
Jared Still
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:
What's the value for your cursor_space_for_time
parameter?
Tanel.
- Original Message -
From:
Hemant
K Chitale
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:54
AM
Subject: SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS -- RE:
Parse Vs Execute
I have taken SESSION_CACHED_CURSORS from 0 to 100 to 400. On
occassion I still see
very high LIBRARY CACHE LATCH contention and am considering upping the
value again.
Currently, I set it at the Instance level. Since I am running
Oracle Apps, I have suggested
to the application team to put a cus
I thought the session_cached_cursors is dynamic and scope is
session? This is on 8.1.7. I have used:
alter session set session_cached_cursors=500;
-Original Message-
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:24 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sami,
'cached_cursors' is not a val
Sami,
'cached_cursors' is not a valid hint, at least not in 9i.
Or at least, I can find no reference to it.
And 'cached cursors' as it appears in the SQL is not a
valid hint syntax.
You need to set the session_cached_cursors value in the
init.ora, and bounce the database. This parameter canno
Dear Jonathan Lewis,
Many thanks for your response.
Using session_cached_cursor parameter I am not getting better response time.
I did run this testcases multiple times but always session_cached_cursor=0
gives better response time.
But the same time w.r.t latch, session_cached_cursor=100 is givin
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 09:24, Jared Still wrote:
> By using DBMS_SQL you can open a cursor and re-execute as many
> times as needed.
>
> You can't do that with execute immediate.
>
> On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 12:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > i remember in tom kytes new book there is a 'softer parse
You don't necessarily need to reduce the parse count
unless you definitely have latch contention on the library
cache latches, and other parse-related latches.
If you are using successfully using session_cached_cursors,
then you will still see parse calls being counted, even though
the parse call
uot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2003/11/26 Wed PM 02:39:39 EST
> > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: Parse Vs Execute
> >
> > Don't do this:
> >
> > Loop
> > P
just gave benchmarks. do you know anymore?
>
> From: "Cary Millsap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/11/26 Wed PM 02:39:39 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Parse Vs Execute
>
> Don't do this:
>
Don't do this:
Loop
Parse
Execute
Fetch
End loop
Do this:
Parse
Loop
Execute
Fetch
End loop
If you parse inside your loop, then all that using bind variables will
gain you is
Here is what I use to monitor my cursor use. If session_cached_cursors
is at or near 100%, I increase is and continue to monitor. On the
system I just checked I'm up to 500. This reduced my parse counts for
some operations.
The other thing is whether there are any compiler flags that need to be
Hi List,
Almost fro all SQLs I am getting Prase count is same as Execute count. How to reduce
parse count?
1) We are using bind variable
2) session_cached_cursors set to 100
call count cpuelapsed disk querycurrentrows
--- -- --
28 matches
Mail list logo
