From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon May 2 21:42:38 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j432gcrq011735 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 21:42:38 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j432gc4Z011731 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 21:42:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4637418FECC; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10185-09; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id BBB0118FDE2; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:40:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20050502193050.040b4480@pop.centrexcc.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 19:38:16 -0600 To: oracle-l@freelists.org From: Wolfgang Breitling Subject: Re: Ora 4031 Cc: gogala@sbcglobal.net, BurtonL@frmaint.com, yaoyongping@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <70646899050502171848db7114@mail.gmail.com> References: <1115077285l.5253l.0l@medo.noip.com> <70646899050502171848db7114@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 19273 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: breitliw@centrexcc.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: breitliw@centrexcc.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63 Mladen, I have to second Yongping's sentiment. The required size of the shared pool depends on a lot of factors. I am running several Peoplesoft databases with a shared pool of 80-100M each and none is getting 4031 errors. Granted, they are development instances. I agreee that Oracle 9i probably needs a bit more shared pool than 8i, all else being equal. Laura, do you have any non-default cursor parameters? Such as "open_cursors", "session_cached_cursors", or "cursor_space_for_time"? What is the exact error you are getting. Is it always the same routine that is getting the error. Have you tried "keep"ing the "STANDARD" (and others) PL/SQL procedures? At 06:18 PM 5/2/2005, Yongping Yao wrote: >"9.2 needs more shared pool then 8.1.6. 256M is a bare minimum" >gogala, how do you conclude that? We use several 9201 here with all >the shared pool 120M, and Statspack didn't say it's busy. Well, one is >OLTP and the others like DSS. Regards Wolfgang Breitling Centrex Consulting Corporation www.centrexcc.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l