Re: Shared sql area in 10g versus 9i

Plus, in the case of the paper, the upgrade was from 32-bit to 64-bit.

--Terry

> I have already seen that and read it.
>
> Basically this is because of the introduction of
> cached execution plans in 9i.
> 10g does not occupy too much more space then 9i. I
> checked that.

> > From "An Oracle 10g Upgrade Case Study: Looking at
> > System Performance Before
> > and After the Upgrade," by Roger Schrag (February
> > 2005)
> >
> (http://www.dbspecialists.com/presentations/case_study_10g.html):
> >
> > "In addition to the shared pool having less usable
> > space in Oracle 10g for
> > the same shared_pool_size setting, it also appears
> > that individual SQL
> > statements occupy more space in Oracle 10g's shared
> > SQL area than Oracle 8i's-in
> > our case almost twice as much."
> >
> > Detailed stats are in the paper.
> >
> > --Terry

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l