This looks like a good idea to me, assuming that you have enough room in
the "keep" pool for these objects, plus anything else that you want to
stay there, if anything.

-----Original Message-----
From: Trincia Nicholas F.
[mailto:oracledba-ezmlmshield-x83404269.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:31 AM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: Spam: Tuning question

All,
I have a vendor application where I CANNOT CHANGE THE CODE!!! They
recently made a change in the app (critical functionality) and have a
script that is running over 900-1500 times per second during peak
periods. Until the vendor produces a fix for this, I have to live with
it. This is a large hospital application running three hospitals, so we
are living with it for now.

Currently, the objects that this select statement accesses are
relatively small. I have a 36G SGA with 5G allocated to the keep pool.
I am thinking of altering these objects from the default cache to the
keep pool, and wanted to get some opinions on this strategy.

My hope here is to isolate this poor behavior from the default pool.
Any thoughts/opinions would be great.

Nick


---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERYBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
To post a dba job: http://jobs.lazydba.com
To Subscribe : http://www.LazyDBA.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html



THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS SENT FROM GENTEX CORPORATION IS GENTEX CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your computer.



Oracle LazyDBA home page