Re: Excessive transaction tables consistent reads - undo records applied in 11.2.0.3
From: Tanel Poder <tanel_at_tanelpoder.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:24:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMHX9JL+7gJ+6a-3QpGxqbjuKRLyU4EpeyFZnsVMCsu4Obq2JA_at_mail.gmail.com>
I wouldn't use it in production mainly because it's almost completely unknown event and nobody's using it, so who knows which extra bugs you may hit (e.g. combining this with direct path reads, PX, smart scans etc). Tanel.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:24:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMHX9JL+7gJ+6a-3QpGxqbjuKRLyU4EpeyFZnsVMCsu4Obq2JA_at_mail.gmail.com>
I wouldn't use it in production mainly because it's almost completely unknown event and nobody's using it, so who knows which extra bugs you may hit (e.g. combining this with direct path reads, PX, smart scans etc). Tanel.
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:
> Interesting. I'll need to check whether fts is subject to adaptive direct
> read with that event on, with and without rownum limits.
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Oct 09 2012 - 06:24:40 CEST