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: _sqlexec_progression_cost in 8.1.7

Re: _sqlexec_progression_cost in 8.1.7

From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital_nospam_at_singnet_nospam.com.sg>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:08:37 +0800
Message-ID: <3D4D3565.D23BD216@singnet_nospam.com.sg>

The first two or three 11i releases were built on 8.1.6 Setting _sqlexec_progression_cost to 0 has been recommended for 11i as per

  1. Note 169935.1 (Troubleshooting ERP Apps Performance Issues)
  2. Note 174605.1 (Current, required, recommended Apps 11i init.ora parameters) {In fact this note also sets it as required at 0 against both 8.1.7 and 9.0.1)
  3. Note 148903.1 (InterOperability Notes Oracle Applications 11i with 8.1.7)

My question relates to Oracle Applications 11.0 (11.0.3) which was built against 8.0.4 and 8.0.5. Per the Applications 11.0 InterOperability Notes with 8.1.7, _sqlexec_progression_cost must be set to 0 after upgrading the database to 8.1.7 if the upgrade is part of a planned upgrade of the applications from 11.0 to 11i. However, there is no specific mention about setting this paramter if running 11.0 against 8.1.7

11.0 was built with the Rule Based optimizer and optimizer_mode=RULE is required even against 8.1.7 but 11i was built with the Cost Based optimizer.

My question was whether _sqlexec_progression_cost=0 is specifically for Cost Based (or CHOOSE) optimizer databases as that is the only difference between 11.0 and 11i against 8.1.7. Per my reading of the 62143.1 and 68955.1 there is no specific reference about the optimizer mode. Therefore, I believe that this parameter also applies in a Rule based database -- ergo an 11.0 database.

So I would think that it makes sense to set _sqlexec_progression_cost to 0
even when running 11.0 and Rule-based.

Although Bug 1210242 mentioned in note 68955.1 says that the bug is fixed in 8.1.7, it doesn't seem to have been fixed -- as apparent in notes 169935.1 and 174605.1.

Hemant Received on Sun Aug 04 2002 - 09:08:37 CDT

Original text of this message

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