Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: optimizer time reported as?
I remember the default on 8.1.7 being 80,000 and Oracle support had us
lower it to 2,000 while we were working on an ORA-04031 iTAR.
ora817 > @mon/parms
'For all columns: Y = Yes/True N = No/False '
D S S M A e e y o d NAME VALUE f ss d j
------------------------------- ----------------------------------- - -- - -
optimizer_max_permutations 80000 Y YN N N
So how did the performance test turn out?
HTH -- Mark D Powell --
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Wolfson Larry -
lwolfs
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:01 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: optimizer time reported as? I got asked about performance on a database that was recentlyupgraded from 8.1.7.4 to 9.2.0.6.
Looking at the initora I noticed optimizer_max_permutations integer79999
The DBA doing the upgrade said she only changed the parmaeters relating to the upgrade.
I know the default changed from 8's 80000 to 9's 2000 and there was an earlier TAR telling us to change the
80000 to 79999.
I thought this might be an issue and I ran Tim Gorman's sp_time script to see where the overhead was.
I just wanted to verify that the optimizer_max_permutations time is accounted for in the
Parsing SQL time and not somewhere else.
TIA Larry Wolfson ************************************************************************ * The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. ************************************************************************* Received on Wed Jan 11 2006 - 22:10:45 CST
![]() |
![]() |