[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       oracle-l
Subject:    RE: sql trace - forward attribution
From:       "Cary Millsap" <cary.millsap () hotsos ! com>
Date:       2003-12-31 18:04:27
Message-ID: F001.005DB5E1.20031231100427 () fatcity ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>.... 
>WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message to client' ela= 1
p1=1413697536 p2=1 p3=0
>WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message from client' ela= 692 p1=1413697536 p2=1
p3=0
>WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message to client' ela= 1 p1=1413697536 p2=1
p3=0 >FETCH
#31:c=0,e=261,p=0,cr=7,cu=0,mis=0,r=4,dep=0,og=4,tim=2001475650589
>WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message from client' ela= 2295 p1=1413697536
p2=1 p3=0
>....

Boris, "SQL*Net message..." events are "between-call" events. Their
times are not included in the following dbcall's elapsed time. But it
*is* appropriate to "blame" the dbcall that follows for the time
consumed by the event. That is, if you can eliminate the dbcall that
follows, then you can eliminate the between-call event (and its elapsed
time). The "assignment of blame" is what "forward attribution" is about.


Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com

Upcoming events:
- Performance Diagnosis 101: 1/27 Atlanta
- SQL Optimization 101: 2/16 Dallas
- Hotsos Symposium 2004: March 7-10 Dallas
- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details...


-----Original Message-----
Boris Dali
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:39 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

I don't have the book with me right now, but I am
obviously missing something in the "forward
attribution" concept as it doesn't seem to help me in
explanation of the following lines:

.... 
WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message to client' ela= 1
p1=1413697536 p2=1 p3=0
WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message from client' ela= 692
p1=1413697536 p2=1 p3=0
WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message to client' ela= 1
p1=1413697536 p2=1 p3=0
FETCH
#31:c=0,e=261,p=0,cr=7,cu=0,mis=0,r=4,dep=0,og=4,tim=2001475650589
WAIT #31: nam='SQL*Net message from client' ela= 2295
p1=1413697536 p2=1 p3=0
....

Shouldn't 1 + 692 + 1 (and possibly + 2295 ???) be
less than 261?
 
Oracle 9.2.0.4.0 on HP-UX 11.11

Thanks,
Boris Dali.

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Boris Dali
  INET: boris_dali@yahoo.ca

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Cary Millsap
  INET: cary.millsap@hotsos.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]