RE: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:53:08 -0800 (PST)
I know exactly what you're talking about. You can say v$sql in Oracle 9i and older can contain information about parent cursors (or cursor heads as some people call) and not child cursors, as in the case a DDL is run against the underlying table. In 10g, that would make both parent and child cursors disappear from v$sql instead of zero'ing out the fields representing heap 6.
Nevertheless saying v$sql can contain objects not in shared pool is not correct.
- On Mon, 12/29/08, Allen, Brandon <Brandon.Allen_at_OneNeck.com> wrote:
> From: Allen, Brandon <Brandon.Allen_at_OneNeck.com>
> Subject: RE: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??
> To: "yong321_at_yahoo.com" <yong321_at_yahoo.com>, "oracle-l_at_freelists.org" <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 10:33 PM
> I believe it's partially possible - some of the cursor
> may be in the shared pool, while other parts may be aged
> out, for example it could appear in v$sql, but not in
> v$sqlplan - maybe that's what the OP was getting at.
> This document explains what I'm talking about in terms
> of heap 0 vs. heap 6 starting on page 8:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Yong
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:55 PM
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: v$sql vs v$sqlarea difference ??
> > *But i am still not clear, someone told me v$sql may
> > objects not exists in Shared pool, which i am also not
> That's not possible. Where did you read that?