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 30-11-03
: 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
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 your
-
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.
Hemant
At 05:29 AM
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
, 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
: 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
freeable chunk, then the 16-byte header of immediate next chunk is checked
?
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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' he
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
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
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
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Parse Vs Execute
Don't do this:
Loop
Parse
Execute
Fetch
End loop
Do this:
Parse
Loop
Execute
Fetch
End loop
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
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
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:
Loop
Parse
Execute
Fetch
27 matches
Mail list logo
