Return-Path: Received: from ensim.rackshack.net (root@localhost) by orafaq.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h45GfWc08450 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 11:41:32 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 209.68.248.164 Received: from newsfeed.cts.com (newsfeed.cts.com [209.68.248.164]) by ensim.rackshack.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h45GfWA08445 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 11:41:32 -0500 Received: from fatcity.com (uucp@localhost) by newsfeed.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id HAA64738; Mon, 5 May 2003 07:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fatcity.com (26-Feb-2001/v1.0g-b72/bab) via UUCP id 0058F53B; Mon, 05 May 2003 05:51:39 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 05:51:39 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum X-Sender: Sender: root@fatcity.com Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com From: Subject: question about v$sgstat Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California X-ListServer: v1.0g, build 72; ListGuru (c) 1996-2001 Bruce A. Bergman Precedence: bulk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit db_block_buffers is listed twice. One with 'Shared Pool' as its pool and once with a null pool. The value with a null pull is about 30 times larger than the value with the Shared Pool. Could someone explain this? Im not too familiar with this view. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: