RE: index contention in RAC
- From: "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:51:28 -0400
It seems this did not make it to Oracle-L the first time, perhaps due to
too much quoted material?
Anyhow...
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobak, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Bobak, Mark; Mark W. Farnham; johan.eriksson@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: index contention in RAC
D'oh!
Thanks to Tim Gorman for pointing out that my example demonstrates that
caching IS, in fact, DISABLED, as shown below!
If it were not, one instance would be doing 10,11,12,13....while the
second was doing 20,21,21,22,23....
Boy, I just totally missed the point on that one.
So, caching is in fact disabled in RAC w/ ORDER specified.
Sorry for the total failure of comprehension on my part....I must have
left my brain in neutral this morning....
-Mark
--
Mark J. Bobak
Senior Oracle Architect
ProQuest Information & Learning
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. --Richard P. Feynman, 1918-1988
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
