Richard,
Excellent testing approach! Thanks so much! I'll try it...
-Tim
on 10/3/03 6:50 AM, Richard Foote at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tim,
Good questions.
As you mention, the memory Oracle says and thinks it's released and what
it actually releases to the kernel has
Hi Tim,
Good questions.
As you mention, the memory Oracle says and thinks it's released and what
it actually releases to the kernel has generally been two different
things. However, the behaviour with P_A_T is somewhat different. A simple
little test for the unconvinced is to simply issue
Hi Tim,
Good questions.
As you mention, the memory Oracle says and thinks it's released and what
it actually releases to the kernel has generally been two different
things. However, the behaviour with P_A_T is somewhat different. A simple
little test for the unconvinced is to simply issue (this
Richard,
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
As a C programmer of some 20 years, I can only assume that Oracle has done
away with the use of the malloc(), free(), etc UNIX library calls and is
now calling the UNIX system call brk() directly?
It was the underlying heap-extent management in the
Answer inline.
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 13:44, Tim Gorman wrote:
Richard,
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
As a C programmer of some 20 years, I can only assume that Oracle has done
away with the use of the malloc(), free(), etc UNIX library calls and is
now calling the UNIX system call
I remember from somewhere in Ixora, that Oracle does only free() without
calling brk() with a negative value to actually release the memory (probably
you even can't do it in every circumstance), so the memory will remain used
untill process exits or dies.
OTOH, Oracle server processes are meant
Hi Tim,
I would suggest there are two key advantages to using automatic workspace
management.
The first and perhaps most important is that yes, unlike the manual method
by which sessions cling onto memory, automatic workspace management can
deallocate the tuneable portion of the PGAs (those
Hi Tim,
There are couple of parts of the conversation we've missed out ;)
Firstly, the server process when talking to the P_A_T instance should have
said, What the hell is going on here, what do you mean I can't have my full
100M, this keeps on happening and it's just good enough. Get a bloody
Hi Tim,
There are couple of parts of the conversation we've missed out ;)
Firstly, the server process when talking to the P_A_T instance should have
said, What the hell is going on here, what do you mean I can't have my full
100M, this keeps on happening and it's just good enough. Get a bloody
? This is a real question.
Niall
But I like the conversation idea anyway
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Foote
Sent: 29 September 2003 14:30
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: workarea_size_policy=auto
Richard,
I take it that your two points are...shall we say...enhancement requests,
not current functionality? :-)
Following up on the discussion of space-efficiency and tabling (for the
moment) my questions about the performance-efficiency side of things.
Yes, there certainly is an element of
Hi!
From what I've been able to determine about this functionality,
efficient
merely means space-efficient, not performance-efficient (i.e. Fewer
cycles? Smarter cycles?). Is this correct? Does anyone know of anything
in WORKAREA_SIZE_POLICY=AUTO which improves performance over
I set PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET to 2,5G in my home computer, but only about
3-4MB
of memory was used for my large sort for example. There are parameters
_smm_max_size and _smm_min_size for setting boundaries for automatic
One more note on these two parameters - setting them didn't work in my
13 matches
Mail list logo
