You did not mention how much data you are dealing with. There may not be
much room for improvement given that the data only spread across two disks.
"Dave" <shoad316_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78cf0572.0305060717.74519254_at_posting.google.com...
> Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_nospam.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:<45febvglh7t9mociqtaf1c0lir4uajdlp5_at_4ax.com>...
> > On 5 May 2003 13:54:14 -0700, shoad316_at_hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:
> >
> > Check out from the v$ tables WHAT it is waiting for, and tune from
> > there.
> > The other approach doesn't make sense, as it never won't identify
> > bottlenecks
>
> I already did that and I think I mentioned it. I can't remember
> the exact event (direct IO wait?) but they were the biggest ones...
> I ran utl[b|e]stat during one of the refreshes.
>
> Dave
>
Received on Tue May 06 2003 - 17:55:19 CDT
