Re: Poor performance w/ stored procedures

From: David E. Scheim <des_at_helix.nih.gov>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 21:39:03 GMT
Message-ID: <des.58.0010A6BF_at_helix.nih.gov>


In article <D1Ctxu.36A_at_nrigw11.nri.co.jp> y-tamura_at_nriws11.nri.co.jp (Youichi Tamura) writes:
>From: y-tamura_at_nriws11.nri.co.jp (Youichi Tamura)
>Subject: Re: Poor performance w/ stored procedures
>Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 06:56:18 GMT
 

>< What we're experiencing is that the performance for people using a stored
>< procedure gets worse as the day goes on. We're eventually forced to shut
>< down the database to clear out the SQLAREA in the SGA. Once this is done,
>< the users run fine for a while then things start to slow again.
 

>Have you checked out bug #242573 in Version 7.0 ?
>This one gave me a big headache. I posted details of this bug a couple
>of months ago under the subject: ORACLE7 reparses stored procedures all
>the time. Oracle gave us workarounds, such as "don't use synonyms, use
>real names," "Convert procedures to packages," etc. Those workarounds
>either did not work or took too much time to implement. Oracle did try
>to build a patch, but gave up due to the "complexity" of the problem.
>--
> Yoichi Tamura
> y-tamura_at_nri.co.jp

Is v. 7.0 a production release or a beta? Stored procedures are the cornerstone of production-quality client-server systems; I can't believe Oracle would issue a production release of a product with fundamental performance problems in stored procedures. -- David Scheim

/*********************************************************************/
/*                   --- David E. Scheim, Ph.D. ---                  */
/*                                                                   */
/* INTERNET: david_scheim_at_nih.gov        PHONE: 301 496-2194         */
/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-3799         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/
Received on Wed Dec 28 1994 - 22:39:03 CET

Original text of this message