Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).

You can log a documentation bug through the iTar system. I have done this in
the past, though it probably won't get changed until 10g release 2 now.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk
"Daniel Morgan" wrote in message
news:1067550579.964913@yasure...
VC wrote:

Hello Daniel,

I am afraid that the URL you've mentioned will be of little help to
the original poster. The manual for 9.2
(http://download-west.oracle.com/docs...a96540/clauses
8a.htm#997633)
claims this:

"INITRANS integer
Specify the initial number of concurrent transaction entries allocated
within each data block allocated to the database object. This value
can range from 1 to 255 and defaults to 1, ..."

However, the reality is such that, under 8.1.7, Oracle creates _one_
ITL entry whilst under 9.2.0.3/4 it creates _two_. The same 'create
table' statement was executed in both cases:

create table t1(x int) initrans 1 maxtrans 1;

Rgds.

Daniel Morgan wrote in message
news:<1067524891.804022@yasure>...

ben brugman wrote:

What am I missing or understanding wrongly.

ben brugman

You are assuming that your interpretation of MINTRANS and MAXTRANS is as
you
think it is. I'd suggest going to http://tahiti.oracle.com and
researching the subject more.

Thanks.

Mark! Mark Townsend! Here's another one that appears to require a bit of
attention.

Thanks.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"VC" wrote in message
news:31e0625e.0310301017.286e88c@posting.google.com...
> Hello Niall,
>
> 1. The original poster 'desired' to see the situation wherein the
> locking phenomenon caused by paucity of ITL slots occurs, hence the
> 'desired' effect. The poster wanted eagerly(syn. desired) to educate
> himself through experimenting with Oracle. Of course, in a production
> environment, one usually does not 'desire' the above effect.
>
> 2. If it was an attempt to be funny, I apologize for my not getting
> the joke.

It was an attempt to reuse what I thought was an old joke. As neither you
nor Ben picked up on this I clearly badly missed the target.

More seriously, this sort of experimenting is exactly the sort of thing that
DBAs should have time and the energy to do IMO. It also occurs to me that,
not for the first time, I might appear to be suggesting that looking at
Block Dumps is a Bad Thing(tm). This isn't my view at all - I just don't
think they are easy things to read.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk

"VC" wrote in message
news:31e0625e.0310301017.286e88c@posting.google.com...
> Hello Niall,
>
> 1. The original poster 'desired' to see the situation wherein the
> locking phenomenon caused by paucity of ITL slots occurs, hence the
> 'desired' effect. The poster wanted eagerly(syn. desired) to educate
> himself through experimenting with Oracle. Of course, in a production
> environment, one usually does not 'desire' the above effect.
>
> 2. If it was an attempt to be funny, I apologize for my not getting
> the joke.

It was an attempt to reuse what I thought was an old joke. As neither you
nor Ben picked up on this I clearly badly missed the target.

More seriously, this sort of experimenting is exactly the sort of thing that
DBAs should have time and the energy to do IMO. It also occurs to me that,
not for the first time, I might appear to be suggesting that looking at
Block Dumps is a Bad Thing(tm). This isn't my view at all - I just don't
think they are easy things to read.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk

Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).

Re: Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).

Re: Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).

Re: Maximum number of transaction. (Newby question).