"Martin T." <0xCDCDCDCD_at_gmx.at> wrote in message
news:46f75cf6$0$1346$834e42db_at_reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Martin T. wrote:
>>> (...)
> Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> > (...)
> Charles Hooper wrote:
> > (...)
> Jerome Vitalis wrote:
> > (...)
>
>
> Thanks all!
>
> We will certainly look into the buffer cache thing and then check the
> other issues.
> Your comments should get us on the right tracks I hope :-)
>
> cheers,
> Martin
After my error on the cache sizing, I can at least
point out that (a) your cache size(s) as presently
set do seem a little small for the size of available
memory, and (b) since you're (rightly) interested in
the read times then the section of the statspack
report "SQL ordered by Physical Reads" is a
better target than trying to second-guess from the
"SQL ordered by Gets" which statements are probably
the ones causing most damage and/or running the most
slowly.
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
Received on Mon Sep 24 2007 - 02:01:24 CDT
