Re: CPU time missing from 10046 trace of cached table

On Jul 19, 4:25 pm, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:56:59 -0700, bdurrettc..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
> >Looks like 10046 traces don't correctly report the CPU usage of full
> >scans of cached tables.
>
> I don't see a 10046 trace, ie RAW data, so what is your issue?
> You didn't post this for a second time because my response didn't suit
> you, did you?
> You don't provide any details: not on how busy the database is, not
> how busy the server is, you just complain that the wall clock ticks
> faster than the CPU!
> What a big surprise.
> Come up with *evidence* instead of unfounded 'claims' and 'myths'.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

I don't know what's going on with Google Groups. I still can't find my first post or your reply. Sorry I missed it.

To answer your question, the system was idle. If the CPU was pegged then the difference between elasped time and CPU time could be explained by CPU queue time. But it wasn't.

I was really puzzled by this result. Hard to understand how the CPU time could be this far off. If you have a better explanation that would be great.

Here is a zip of the sql, trace file, tkprof output, etc. if you want to see the details:

http://www.geocities.com/bobbyandmarielle/simplecached.zip

• Bobby