Re: V$ Views

From: <art_at_unsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <dda96823-cfbf-40ca-9254-86accb279b25_at_s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>



On May 27, 12:13 pm, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 11:42 am, a..._at_unsu.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 11:20 am, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 9:04 am, a..._at_unsu.com wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 3:42 pm, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 26, 12:58 pm, a..._at_unsu.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > I'm looking at some Oracle documentation and they are not really clear
> > > > > > on that the following items are in V$SESSION & V$PROCESS:
>
> > > > > > V$SESSION - process
> > > > > > V$PROCESS - pid & spid
>
> > > > > > They cannot all be server process ID's.......
>
> > > > > It becomes a little more clear when you actually check these things on
> > > > > a real system.  Remember, Oracle has its process id, while the OS has
> > > > > its own process id, which on some systems may not be a process at all.
>
> > > > > Note the PADDR in V$SESSION is an address, which can be used to find
> > > > > the process in V$PROCESS.  In there, there is the Oracle process, PID,
> > > > > and the OS process, SPID.  The PROCESS column in V$SESSION is the
> > > > > client process, so you may see the "process" for a completely
> > > > > different OS.
>
> > > > >   1  select sid, process from v$session
> > > > >   2* where rownum < 4
> > > > > SYS_at_XXXX > /
>
> > > > >        SID PROCESS
> > > > > ---------- ------------
> > > > >        231 10616
> > > > >        234 10616
> > > > >        235 5684:4476
>
> > > > > So here we see there are two Oracle session identifiers with the same
> > > > > unix process, so obviously at least one of them is expired.  The one
> > > > > with a colon in it is a client on Windows.
>
> > > > > SYS_at_TPRD> select a.sid, a.process, b.pid, b.spid from v$session a, v
> > > > > $process b where a.paddr=b.addr and a.sid in (231,234,235);
>
> > > > >        SID PROCESS             PID SPID
> > > > > ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------
> > > > >        235 5684:4476           206 10436
> > > > >        234 10616               208 10618
> > > > >        231 10616               209 10620
>
> > > > > If you were to do a ps -ef (or whatever your local equivalent is)
> > > > > grepping for those processes, you might see children owned by the init
> > > > > process, while others might show that they are local or remote
> > > > > connections.
>
> > > > > jg
> > > > > --
> > > > > _at_home.com is bogus.http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/26/1n26texting235813-...
>
> > > > Actually Joel, I'd like to tap your brain one more time.......
>
> > > > Oracle refers to a CPU TIME & ELAPSED TIME.  What are those?  Is CPU
> > > > time the actual time the process has been running?
>
> > > > Also, from within Oracle, is there a good way to get CPU Usage in a
> > > > number that makes sense?  Like a percentage?  And, lastly, can I find
> > > > out how long a query has been 'running'?    not how long it will take,
> > > > but how long it has been executing?   not using 'timing on', as this
> > > > will run within a block.....
>
> > > > Thanks for your time......- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No, ELAPSED TIME is the time the process has been running.  CPU TIME
> > > is the actual time the cpu was used for the process, and it oftentimes
> > > is less than the elapsed time since the cpu is not continuously used
> > > by a process.  For example a process consumes 38 seconds from start to
> > > finish (the elapsed time) but only used 3 seconds of processor time
> > > (cpu time).
>
> > > The CPU statistic is reporting the actual CPU time to the nearest
> > > 1/100 of a second.  Any CPU time less than 10 milliseconds is reported
> > > as 0; any time 1/100 of a second or longer is reported to the nearest
> > > 1/100 of a second.
>
> > > V$SESSION_LONGOPS can report on such activity provided you're
> > > executing a long-running operation in that query/session.  Normally
> > > exceptionally long-running queries don't put records in V
> > > $SESSION_LONGOPS, so that's not likely the best way to time them.
> > > There's always the ELAPSED_TIME column (reported in microseconds) in V
> > > $SQL:
>
> > >   1  select *
> > >   2  from
> > >   3  (select sql_id, elapsed_time/1000000 elapsed_sec, cpu_time/
> > > 1000000 cpu_sec
> > >   4  from v$sql
> > >   5  order by 2 desc)
> > >   6* where rownum <20
> > > SQL> /
>
> > > SQL_ID        ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> > > ------------- ----------- ----------
> > > 0f04wnwfz1bym   93.070916   1.578125
> > > 6gvch1xu9ca3g   88.197334   33.03125
> > > 4b7087n60nt4u   33.680734    .109375
> > > 4g4k54qrsawn6   33.180485    .171875
> > > cfnrd41661bgr   27.783444    4.71875
> > > duv4bca2kyw10   23.519094    4.40625
> > > cvn54b7yz0s8u   21.597706      .4375
> > > 3am9cfkvx7gq1   17.308811   1.453125
> > > db78fxqxwxt7r   10.594218    .109375
> > > 04xtrk7uyhknh    9.903296    .140625
> > > gjm43un5cy843    9.458824    .359375
>
> > > SQL_ID        ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> > > ------------- ----------- ----------
> > > c2p32r5mzv8hb    9.221781    .390625
> > > 3ktacv9r56b51    8.422042         .5
> > > db78fxqxwxt7r    8.399519      .3125
> > > 9bhvms9my13tg    7.630945      .1875
> > > 04xtrk7uyhknh     7.17565    .296875
> > > 1rswbxwhbpmr7    7.035718   7.046875
> > > f6cz4n8y72xdc     6.65765   2.046875
> > > 02577v815yp77    5.464186     .40625
>
> > > 19 rows selected.
>
> > > SQL>
>
> > > This view should be updated on a regular basis while a query is
> > > running.
>
> > > David Fitzjarrell
>
> > David,
>
> > Thank you for your explanation.  It helps a lot.  but, running your
> > query seems to give some strange results to me, unless I am absent
> > minded an I'm missing something.  These numbers seem a bit out of
> > range.....
>
> > SQL_ID        ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> > ------------- ----------- ----------
> > grv576tam3wz6  25028.2336 22062.3498
> > grv576tam3wz6  23809.5651 21193.4261
> > dg2vykyks141h  22688.4501 17100.6989
> > 6snq0whxbkmqr  18853.7533 18708.7543
> > 0k8522rmdzg4k    15044.48 13874.3492
> > ap0j1njyb3vn6  14348.6968 13520.1365
> > 0h6b2sajwb74n  12746.8809  11565.297
> > grv576tam3wz6  12541.5917 10041.2976
> > grv576tam3wz6  11228.9609 9536.30756
> > 3swtwfrkp2ycb  10635.0792  7236.3313
> > 8c1a1wkydnyka   10564.061 8038.75488
> > azvbyb2qyvuba  9236.01433 8977.61836
> > 02cmjb189v50v  9166.69735 8931.69056
> > cxasp1p5dzar9  8039.53314 5617.07135
> > grv576tam3wz6  7853.67191 6745.95971
> > 76cmq4n6gpf4m  7121.56018 6951.01764
> > 3t1sr60f4k08t  7082.10863 6924.18775
> > grv576tam3wz6  7026.69076 6149.33877
> > 2mj8narkuq7cz  5029.03737    4438.24- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Which release of Oracle are you using?  My example was run on
> 11.1.0.6.0; running on 10.2.0.3.0 produces similar results:
>
> SQL_ID        ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> ------------- ----------- ----------
> 0ay748ut6y71y   105.12124   8.612823
> 9babjv8yq8ru3   50.005961  48.368822
> 2fn772jvq65x8   22.846689  18.603207
> 04xtrk7uyhknh   19.659478   1.092427
> 6ssrk2dqj7jbx   11.581409  11.434821
> db78fxqxwxt7r    9.367865   2.450075
> 15zytu14qzw6p    9.125182   5.992813
> d84j21mk6yg4t    8.968155   8.265884
> 7ng34ruy5awxq    8.777385   4.068298
> 4g058urgafqba    8.446415   7.893553
> 83taa7kaw59c1    8.069311   5.503922
>
> SQL_ID        ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> ------------- ----------- ----------
> 3uhv17xx0rdaw    7.597785   7.269046
> 96g93hntrzjtr     7.24189   2.090622
> cfz686a6qp0kg    6.641422    .806988
> cqgv56fmuj63x    6.396006    .831888
> g2wr3u7s1gtf3    6.355499   6.245516
> db78fxqxwxt7r    6.036362   1.154494
> f2rwh1dn46zqr    5.939855    5.63228
> 6769wyy3yf66f    5.905408   2.183099
>
> 19 rows selected.
>
> with 'reasonable' times.  ELAPSED_TIME is the overall time of
> execution for the query; it doesn't accrue time just by sitting idle
> in the cache waiting for someone else to run it.  I'm  not certain if
> each new execution of that same cursor adds time to the existing value
> (the documentation doesn't mention that), but it might, and in that
> case you'd need to divide by EXECUTIONS to get a per-execution time:
>
>   1  select *
>   2  from
>   3  (select sql_id, executions, (elapsed_time/1000000)/executions
> elapsed_sec, (cpu_time/1000000)/executions cpu_sec
>   4  from v$sql
>   5  where executions > 0
>   6  order by 2 desc)
>   7* where rownum <20
> SQL> /
>
> SQL_ID        EXECUTIONS ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------
> 9babjv8yq8ru3      75952  .000659001 .000637446
> bsa0wjtftg3uw      42702  .000134341 .000130793
> g2wr3u7s1gtf3      26212  .000243062 .000238866
> 6ssrk2dqj7jbx      24630  .000471257 .000465305
> d84j21mk6yg4t      23281  .000385213 .000355048
> 4g058urgafqba      15064    .0005609 .000524199
> 96g93hntrzjtr      14293  .000506774 .000146369
> 6769wyy3yf66f      12548  .000470647 .000174002
> 3dd7j7ax4b8q3      11433   .00049602 .000456913
> 6kqp8mxqdpmjm      10084   .00031818 .000314584
> 9gg39pv272g1s       9279  .000482514 .000439094
>
> SQL_ID        EXECUTIONS ELAPSED_SEC    CPU_SEC
> ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------
> 83taa7kaw59c1       7872  .001025113 .000699226
> 53saa2zkr6wc3       5466  .000548442 .000160457
> 2ym6hhaq30r73       4754  .000213815 .000149964
> db78fxqxwxt7r       3995  .002344897 .000613285
> 04xtrk7uyhknh       2597  .007578848 .000420977
> 7ng34ruy5awxq       2597  .003380357 .001567077
> 3c1kubcdjnppq       2553  .000497127 .000365373
> 3uhv17xx0rdaw       2392  .003178662 .003041229
>
> 19 rows selected.
>
> SQL>
>
> David Fitzjarrell

David,

We are running 10.2.0.1.0.

Your last example seems more in line with what I have, which would mean that I need to divide by executions....

SQL_ID EXECUTIONS ELAPSED_SEC CPU_SEC ------------- ---------- ----------- ----------

0h6b2sajwb74n   32254492  .000398411 .000361647
6yzdq8g95c8v1   18357941   .00022399 .000156537
0k8522rmdzg4k   15751217  .000961001 .000886548
2skwhauh2cwky   10006004  .000193552 .000128388
1cjdhywpf9bg9    7551700  .000177851 .000142995
grv576tam3wz6    7188628  .003312115 .002948188
d9jqr1btu2v65    7066942  .000218718 .000174304
grv576tam3wz6    6460058   .00400273 .003484914
d9jqr1btu2v65    5736842  .000207206 .000186247
d9jqr1btu2v65    3529968  .000287203 .000251645
d9jqr1btu2v65    3345433  .000262384 .000214567
grv576tam3wz6    2559235  .004387624 .003726234
az232kvbv7nsg    2542745  .000177958 .000145767
grv576tam3wz6    2363772  .005305754 .004247998
d9jqr1btu2v65 2323516 .000291011 .00025257 grv576tam3wz6 1986615 .003537017 .003095385 4m7m0t6fjcs5x 1899141 .00130906 .0010982 3swtwfrkp2ycb 1863842 .005732104 .003898867 g781rgvstnwj5 1748359 .002057874 .00154739

Though that is saying that they all took only a fraction of a second....unless I need to divide by some further number. Received on Wed May 27 2009 - 12:34:12 CDT

Original text of this message