<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Extended SQL Trace &#8211; the Case of the Missing 40,000 Seconds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/extended-sql-trace-the-case-of-the-missing-40000-seconds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/extended-sql-trace-the-case-of-the-missing-40000-seconds/</link>
	<description>Miscellaneous Random Oracle Topics: Stop, Think, ... Understand</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 04:02:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Hooper</title>
		<link>http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/extended-sql-trace-the-case-of-the-missing-40000-seconds/#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Hooper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/?p=1175#comment-304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Excellent point regarding the DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP function - thanks for catching the typo with that function name.  Good suggestion regarding the gettimeofday calls causing &quot;lost&quot; time.  

As I posted in the thread, the delta values of the tim= entries in the trace file section provided by the OP typically showed a variance from the wait event time ranging between roughly 0.000069 seconds and 0.000626 seconds - it might be an odd coincidence that the high end of the variance (0.000626) multiplied by the number of lines in the trace file (71,815,238) would total about 44,956 seconds - a bit more than the missing 40,000 seconds.  Of course, not all lines in the trace file would have generated this variance, and the majority of the variances in the section of the trace file posted by the OP were less than 0.0002 seconds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent point regarding the DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP function &#8211; thanks for catching the typo with that function name.  Good suggestion regarding the gettimeofday calls causing &#8220;lost&#8221; time.  </p>
<p>As I posted in the thread, the delta values of the tim= entries in the trace file section provided by the OP typically showed a variance from the wait event time ranging between roughly 0.000069 seconds and 0.000626 seconds &#8211; it might be an odd coincidence that the high end of the variance (0.000626) multiplied by the number of lines in the trace file (71,815,238) would total about 44,956 seconds &#8211; a bit more than the missing 40,000 seconds.  Of course, not all lines in the trace file would have generated this variance, and the majority of the variances in the section of the trace file posted by the OP were less than 0.0002 seconds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timur Akhmadeev</title>
		<link>http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/extended-sql-trace-the-case-of-the-missing-40000-seconds/#comment-302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timur Akhmadeev]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/?p=1175#comment-302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&gt;Problem where the batch process called DBMS_SLEEP?
I doubt so. DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP would results in &lt;a href=&quot;http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14237/waitevents003.htm#sthref3133&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;PL/SQL lock timer&lt;/a&gt; waits.

Another possibility is SQL trace inaccuracies, for ex. due to system calls overheads. I&#039;ve seen such behavior on a Linux boxes where gettimeofday calls were not so fast and introduced significant load on the CPU - 75-90%  instead of 10-15% with disabled SQL trace.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;Problem where the batch process called DBMS_SLEEP?<br />
I doubt so. DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP would results in <a href="http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14237/waitevents003.htm#sthref3133" rel="nofollow">PL/SQL lock timer</a> waits.</p>
<p>Another possibility is SQL trace inaccuracies, for ex. due to system calls overheads. I&#8217;ve seen such behavior on a Linux boxes where gettimeofday calls were not so fast and introduced significant load on the CPU &#8211; 75-90%  instead of 10-15% with disabled SQL trace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
