| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
No, I don't know of any algorithm to correct the query time.
Ian MacGregor
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
ian_at_slac.stanford.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Lewis [mailto:jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:48 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: query slow in 9i, but not slow in 8i
Ian,
Do you have any mechanism for correcting the query time; or is it a random number ?
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
March 2004 Hotsos Symposium - The Burden of Proof
Dynamic Sampling - an investigation
March 2004 Charlotte OUG (www.cltoug.org) CBO Tutorial April 2004 Iceland
June 2004 UK - Optimising Oracle Seminar
> The ORA-01555 error indicates you need to p the value of the
UNDO_RETENTION parameter. You MAY also need to increase the UNDO tablespace
size. The error does not report the "Query Duration" accurately.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guang Mei [mailto:gmei_at_incyte.com]
>
> ORA-01555 caused by SQL statement below (Query Duration=199335 sec, SCN:
> 0x0000.01db218e):
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Tue Mar 02 2004 - 13:43:11 CST
 |
 |