Personal communication.
On 01/24/2004 06:44:24 AM, Ryan wrote:
where did you hear that oracle 10g was written almost entirely
outside
the
US?
what critical problems have you had with 9i?
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, Ja
where did you hear that oracle 10g was written almost entirely outside the
US?
what critical problems have you had with 9i?
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:19 PM
>
> On 01/23/2004 07:54:25 PM, "Arnold,
On 01/23/2004 07:54:25 PM, "Arnold, Sandra" wrote:
We still have an 8.1.5 database as well as two 8.1.7.4 and one 9.2.04
databases. We are planning on upgrading our 8i databases this year.
The
rate we are going it probably will be two years before we get to 10g.
Sandra
That would be a very coura
We still have an 8.1.5 database as well as two 8.1.7.4 and one 9.2.04
databases. We are planning on upgrading our 8i databases this year. The
rate we are going it probably will be two years before we get to 10g.
Sandra
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 5:39 PM
To: Multip
i heard tom kyte speak in december. He said first quarter 2004 for solaris.
most people seem to still be on 8i. We have both 8i and 9i instance here. It will
probably be a year before many employers are using it anywy.
>
> From: "Grabowy, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/01/23 Fri PM 03
ECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 22 januari 2004 11:05
Aan: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Onderwerp: Re: Re: pga_aggregate_target and a memory leak
Im not sure I see what the size of the PAT has to do with a memory leak. On
metalink there is a laundry list of PGA things that were supposedly causing
m
nuari 2004 11:05
Aan: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Onderwerp: Re: Re: pga_aggregate_target and a memory leak
Im not sure I see what the size of the PAT has to do with a memory leak. On
metalink there is a laundry list of PGA things that were supposedly causing
memory leaks prior to 9.2.0.4. Ar
richt-
Van: Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 22 januari 2004 11:05
Aan: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Onderwerp: Re: Re: pga_aggregate_target and a memory leak
Im not sure I see what the size of the PAT has to do with a memory leak. On
metalink there is a laundry li
Yes. On Solaris 5.8.
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:10 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sandra - Are you on 9.2.0.4?
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:44 AM
To: Multip
Sandra - Are you on 9.2.0.4?
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I have had a problem on my 9i database for three weeks. I am getting a
ORA-7445 error which is point
I have had a problem on my 9i database for three weeks. I am getting a
ORA-7445 error which is pointing to some memory problems. It is occurring
during the CTX_DOC.FILTER process. We are running this process from a
custom PL/SQL package that is being initiated from an Oracle Job. However,
we st
Paul,
Most of my work is on HP-UX and AIX.
I have yet to see any ORA-600 and memory leaks related to P_A_T. All databases that I
work with
are on 9.2.0.4, except just one running on 9.2.0.3. No memory leak there either.
- Kirti
--- Paul Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Kirtikumar Desh
Im not sure I see what the size of the PAT has to do with a memory leak. On
metalink there is a laundry list of PGA things that were supposedly causing
memory leaks prior to 9.2.0.4. Are you certain its PAT causing it? Maybe
they didnt fix all the memory leaks with the PGA in general?
has anyone h
--- Kirtikumar Deshpande
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it depends on your applications.
>
> In DSS type environments we are still stuggling to
> figure out if P_A_T is helping or not. Initial
> tests are not in P_A_T's favor.
>
> But in another Application, that is 80% OLTP, P_A_T
> was
I think it depends on your applications.
In DSS type environments we are still stuggling to figure out if P_A_T is helping or
not. Initial
tests are not in P_A_T's favor.
But in another Application, that is 80% OLTP, P_A_T was the only choice to avoid
swapping. This
9.2.0.3 database had the S
kirti-- would you recommend avoiding pga_aggregate_target for now?
>
> From: Kirtikumar Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/01/21 Wed PM 02:44:31 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: pga_aggregate_target and a memory leak
>
> Replies in line...
16 matches
Mail list logo