Reading an AWR Report -- 3 Continuing the Reading an AWR report series .... I run these statements :
h h
!!" h # h $ %& ' ( )* " #& + ," - (.h ".//* 0 ( )* 1 #& ! ('2!!* !! (.h '2!!.//* !$ ( )* !% #& !' ,! !" ,! !+ (.h ! 3 ! .//* !- !0 h "' !$!-%$ h '2!!0 ' $+-$ h ! 3 ! $ !-$'1%+ h
!%' "
h The AWR report indicates that the whole PLSQL block took 57.47 seconds but that the individual SQLs in the block took 70.52 to 112.95 seconds (Note :The client reported a total elapsed time of 94.05seconds, including parsing and SQLNet time !).
( )* #& ('2!!* (.h '2!!.//* ( )* !!!!!''00$! +!" ")H=!# > h ? 6D7G G5 The table has a PARALLEL DEGREE of 4 defined so each of the three queries, doing a FullTableScan actually used 4 PQ slaves. What are the time model statistics ?
4 > h 567 893 h !%$ :!%$! :4 : (564 *$0%" :h & I& I &
2
56 :8; 56 2h h G 4 ( *; 564 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
) $0!011'
563 h ?
h34h(h@ 4A*B98>C9A@9DB@344@6EF9985757G('2!!* '+0!'+-1$0!+!+$+! 0 -"= > h ? h34h(h@ 4A*B98>C9A@9DB@344@6EF998575,! @G5 3 h ? h34h(h@ 4A*B98>C9A@9DB@344@6EF998575," Isn't that a very interesting difference from yesterday's report ? Now we have the real execution time for each of the three SQLs which add up to the time for the PLSQL block. Is there a discrepancy in the Time Model Statistics now ?
4 > h 567 893 h !%$":!%$+ :4 : (564 *!+++ :h & I& I &
2
56 :8; 56 2h h G 4 ( *; 564 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website.