From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Wed Feb 2 09:37:25 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j12FbPIF008625 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:37:25 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j12FbPem008611 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:37:25 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id D2CF46C93D; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21629-10; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 566CC6C8F3; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:36:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4200E504.5020200@centrexcc.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:34:44 -0700 From: Wolfgang Breitling Organization: Centrex Consulting Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yasbs@kocbank.com.tr Cc: oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: Re: cpu time and query column in tkprof output References: <083667B535F3464CA0DD0D1DAFA4E37604D50AF0@camexc1.kfs.local> In-Reply-To: <083667B535F3464CA0DD0D1DAFA4E37604D50AF0@camexc1.kfs.local> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-UCIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact IT Help Desk at (403) 220-5555 for more information X-UCIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UCIT-MailScanner-From: breitliw@centrexcc.com X-archive-position: 15673 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: breitliw@centrexcc.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: breitliw@centrexcc.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Level: Why is there a difference in bytes sent/received via SQL*Net between the two cases? If both do the same, shouldn't at least bytes sent be the same? Yasin Baskan wrote: > I have the following statistics for the one with less cpu time and less > elapsed time: > > Statistics > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 0 recursive calls > 62 db block gets > 11407 consistent gets > 14 physical reads > 0 redo size > 189 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client > 791 bytes received via SQL*Net from client > 3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client > 5 sorts (memory) > 1 sorts (disk) > 1 rows processed > > And the following statistics are for the one with more cpu time and > elapsed time: > > Statistics > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 0 recursive calls > 58 db block gets > 4108 consistent gets > 155 physical reads > 0 redo size > 204 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client > 657 bytes received via SQL*Net from client > 3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client > 5 sorts (memory) > 1 sorts (disk) > 1 rows processed > > The number of sorts is the same. The one with more cpu time has 141 more > physical reads but much less buffer gets. Then the idea of focusing on > logical reads and ignoring physical reads is not true for this case. Do > you suggest using the one with more cpu&elapsed time but less buffer > gets or the one with less cpu time but more buffer gets? > -- Regards Wolfgang Breitling Centrex Consulting Corporation www.centrexcc.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l