RE: Library Cache question
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:06:38 -0500
Message-ID: <BAY119-W34412EC724BD7304EBCE84C2C10_at_phx.gbl>
Thanks for the reply, Gentlemen. We use "FORCE". I guess my next step is to test "SIMILAR" at some point and compare the results.
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:56:35 -0600Subject: Re: Library Cache questionFrom: cary.millsap_at_method-r.comTo: martinfbrown_at_hotmail.comCC: oracle-l_at_freelists.org(to fortify Jared's point...)...Because it just doesn't make any sense for the database to keep a cursor that doesn't ever get reused. And what kind of session is going to reuse a SQL statement with string literals boiled in for, say part numbers or date values with 1-second granularity?Cary Millsaphttp://method-r.comhttp://carymillsap.blogspot.com On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Martin Brown <martinfbrown_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
... Unfortunately, our developers ar not fans of bind variables either. You may have nailed it right there.The high miss rate would seem to be an indication of that.Jared StillCertifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Feb 06 2009 - 10:06:38 CST