RE: index contention in RAC

It seems this did not make it to Oracle-L the first time, perhaps due to too much quoted material?

Anyhow...

-----Original Message-----

From: Bobak, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Bobak, Mark; Mark W. Farnham; johan.eriksson_at_bossmedia.se; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: index contention in RAC

D'oh!

Thanks to Tim Gorman for pointing out that my example demonstrates that caching IS, in fact, DISABLED, as shown below!

If it were not, one instance would be doing 10,11,12,13....while the second was doing 20,21,21,22,23....

Boy, I just totally missed the point on that one.

So, caching is in fact disabled in RAC w/ ORDER specified.

Sorry for the total failure of comprehension on my part....I must have left my brain in neutral this morning....

-Mark

--

Mark J. Bobak
Senior Oracle Architect
ProQuest Information & Learning

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. --Richard P. Feynman, 1918-1988
--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Fri Apr 21 2006 - 13:51:28 CDT