AWR vs. TKPROF debate

I am on a rather large team and we are trying to come up with a consistent strategy for performance testing. We want to come up with a way to gather metrics and measure performance and regiment it so that everyone does relatively the same thing. This is primarily a batch processing system written in pl/sql.

I favor an approach of awrrpt.sql plus 10046 trace. We need the awrrpt.sql to gather bulk metrics during tests where we have alot of threads running to get cpu, physical IO, redo, etc... to put into our models.

This does not provide enough granularity to measure individual sqls, so I also want us to gather 10046 traces. This is easy enough since we can gather them for each batch process instead of having to do it for 1 sql at a time. I want to keep the awrrpt and the 10046 traces in case we have a performance problem. We can then review our last well performing plan and compare them. I think it will make it easier to fix potential performance problems. This is easy enough and requires little effort.

I am getting some push back on this. Some memberse of the team believe that the AWR and v$sql_plan views are mature enough where we can get the same information as we can with a tkprof. I have not looked at the AWR all that much. Is there any accuracy to this?

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