Breitling
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:04 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: Record breaking query
Is that an Oracle 9 system and the time is in microseconds rather than
seconds?
At 10:39 AM 8/8/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Yeah
Title: RE: Record breaking query
but message says it is in seconds ... anf yes it is 92 ...
Thanks
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD
Is that an Oracle 9 system and the time is in microseconds rather than
seconds?
At 10:39 AM 8/8/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Yeah, but think of the uptime! One helluva MTBF on that server...
Rich
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, but think of the uptime! One helluva MTBF on that server...
Rich
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:49 PM
To: Multiple recipients
Title: RE: Record breaking query
I have
seen the time for wait_events in 8.1 do funny things when the system date was
changed by ntp. Oracle assumes that end time is after start time for each
wait event, if this is not the case due to the system clock being changed, you
get a BIG number
WOW! How many googolbytes do you have devoted to your Undo Tablespaces?
Jamadagni, Rajendra wrote:
TICK : Fri Aug 8 09:06:03 2003
SEARCH in kdisti: tsn = 5, objd = 83525, rdba = 33588489
ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query Duration=1060347963 sec, SCN:
0x0011.05e003c2):
TICK
Title: RE: Record breaking query
Thanks Wolfgang,
our retention time is 21600 seconds ... and this one bailed out in half the time ...
Oh well ... we need to fix few more things ..
Raj
Rajendra dot
Title: RE: Record breaking query
12GB only
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art
