Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: SP Non-Parse CPU Calculation IS Incorrect

Re: SP Non-Parse CPU Calculation IS Incorrect

From: Ed Bittel <bitlist_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:39:16 -0700
Message-ID: <F001.003B081D.20011019134117@fatcity.com>

I don't know if anyone else uses Statspack, but I couldn't help but notice the incorrect '% Non Parse CPU' result in the instance efficiency section of the report.

Non-Parse CPU % calculation taken from STATSPACK 8.1.7: STATSREP.SQL:
        round(100*1-(:prscpu/:tcpu),2).

It should be:

        round(100*(1-(:prscpu/:tcpu),2)).
        

Here's an example using actual statspack values for 'CPU used by this session' and 'parse time cpu'.

select round(100*1-(23255/234162),2) pctval from dual;

    PCTVAL


      99.9

select round(100*(1-(23255/234162)),2) pctval from dual;

    PCTVAL


     90.07

So instead of .10% of CPU being used to parse as reported by Statspack, the database is actually using 10% of CPU to parse. Using the statspack calculation, my database could be using 50% of CPU to parse and the report would still report a high non-parse CPU %.

I guess it pays to remember "My Dear Aunt Sally".



Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
--

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--

Author: Ed Bittel
  INET: bitlist_at_yahoo.com
Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). Received on Fri Oct 19 2001 - 15:39:16 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US