That's the idea actually. Those 3 rows should stay away from Oracle.
Thanks Alex.
On 4/21/06, Alex Gorbachev <gorbyx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why don't you cache 3 rows in the application? You would avoid all
> kind of problems with concurrent access then.
>
> 2006/4/20, Ranko Mosic <ranko.mosic_at_gmail.com>:
> >
> > Thanks all for their responses. I apologize for not having more detail -
> > this is yet another
> > 4 pm issue. Version is 9.2.0.x. This table has only 3 ( three ) rows, so
> any
> > points relating to pk/indexes/IOT etc don't apply here.
> > Why is this bad thing ? I don't know, I asked client the same question,
> but
> > they seem sure
> > they are seeing problem. I didn't have chance yet to have direct look at
> the
> > problem.
> > Caching is current idea and also suggested by Oracle Consulting.
> > I am not sure how much it will help though - block is cached anyway, so
> > buffer cache latch will be replaced with shared pool latch. Spreading
> > accross 3 blocks is also considered.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alex Gorbachev
>
--
Regards,
Ranko Mosic
Contract Senior Oracle DBA
B. Eng, Oracle 10g, 9i Certified Database Professional
Phone: 416-450-2785
email: mosicr_at_rogers.com
http://ca.geocities.com/mosicr@rogers.com/ContractSeniorOracleDBARankoMosicMain.html
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Fri Apr 21 2006 - 06:49:42 CDT
