Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: interpreting utlestat report

Re: interpreting utlestat report

From: Ed Stevens <Ed.Stevens_at_nmm.nissan-usa.com>
Date: 2000/04/10
Message-ID: <8csjk5$qoc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1

In article <955131101.13019.3.pluto.d4ee154e_at_news.demon.nl>,   "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> "Ed Stevens" <Ed.Stevens_at_nmm.nissan-usa.com> wrote in message
> news:8cl6rn$3un$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In reviewing utlestat reports on several of our databases I have
> > noticed several things that raised my eybrows - not with the
> > performance per se (though there is plenty there as well!) but with
> > some things that just don't look "right."
> >
> > 1) negative numbers for "logons current"
> > 2) negative numbers for "opened cursors current"
> > 3) negative numbers for "session uga memory"
> > 4) negative numbers for undo segment XACTS
> > 5) counts for blocks_read and block_changes, but no physical reads
 or
> > writes. I assume this indicates everything was in the buffer pool
 but
> > am not ready to have my feet held to the fire on it.
> >
> > Also I've been playing around with the SHARED_POOL_SIZE, trying to
 get
> > some get hit ratios back up above 90%. Perhaps I need more
 observation
> > periods, but I see at one increase of the SHARED_POOL_SIZE, the get
 hit
> > ratio for the SQL area improved but the table/procedure area got
 worse.
> > In studying back through my materials from the tuning workshop, it
> > seems that the only item to impact any of these is the
> > SHARED_POOL_SIZE, which also impacts the data dictionary cache. How
> > does Oracle8 determine how much of the shared pool to give to the
> > different areas of the library cache and the data dictionary cache?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > - Ed Stevens
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> Are you eyebrows still moving?
> 1 - 4 This means the current number (when utlestat was run) is lower
 than
> the number when utlbstat was run. Both figures are simply
 substracted. You
> can see that in the utlestat code.
> 5 This is correct.
>
> Hth,
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
>

Ahh, for dumb! Sometimes I can't see the trees for the forest. Thanks for the splash of cold water!

--
Ed Stevens
(Opinions are not necessarily those of my employer)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Received on Mon Apr 10 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US