There is no problem description in this issue. I guess you want us to interpret your trace file.
TOP STATEMENTS ORDERED BY RESPONSE TIME
Statement# Statement Response time Service time Wait time Logical IO in Overall(%)
----------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ---------- ----------- --------------
2 SELECT apps.xxkrs_cst_get_item_type_ctg (o251371.i 3,439.97 3,425.76 14.21 495,463,680 68%
8 SELECT NVL(L.ACCOUNTED_DR,0)-NVL(L.ACCOUNTED_CR,0) 1,516.72 1,507.32 9.40 45,640,708 30%
1 UN-KNOWN CURSOR 3 61.53 0.00 61.53 0 1%
7 SELECT DECODE (:B4 , 'T', DECODE (:B3 , 'C', MSI.I 17.24 8.93 8.31 437,446 0%
6 SELECT Z.ITEM_COST FROM (SELECT X.ITEM_COST FROM X 16.46 8.73 7.73 114,563 0%
5 SELECT PROFILE_OPTION_VALUE FROM FND_PROFILE_OPTIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0%
4 SELECT PROFILE_OPTION_ID, APPLICATION_ID, SITE_ENA 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0%
3 SELECT FPOV.PROFILE_OPTION_VALUE FROM FND_PROFILE_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0%
----------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ---------- ----------- --------------
total 5,051.91 4,950.74 101.17 541,656,408 100%
The statement# 2 and 8 look having high consumption when compared to others.
Unfortunately, there is no execution plan to go forward. I recommend you getting traces for individually for each statements by i.e sqlplus. Or, check your application if your cursors of these statements are closed after they are completed. When cursors are closed, their respective execution plans are dumped to traces.
ubTools Support - 20/Oct/08 08:58 AM There is no problem description in this issue. I guess you want us to interpret your trace file.
TOP STATEMENTS ORDERED BY RESPONSE TIME
Statement# Statement Response time Service time Wait time Logical IO in Overall(%)
----------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ---------- ----------- --------------
2 SELECT apps.xxkrs_cst_get_item_type_ctg (o251371.i 3,439.97 3,425.76 14.21 495,463,680 68%
8 SELECT NVL(L.ACCOUNTED_DR,0)-NVL(L.ACCOUNTED_CR,0) 1,516.72 1,507.32 9.40 45,640,708 30%
1 UN-KNOWN CURSOR 3 61.53 0.00 61.53 0 1%
7 SELECT DECODE (:B4 , 'T', DECODE (:B3 , 'C', MSI.I 17.24 8.93 8.31 437,446 0%
6 SELECT Z.ITEM_COST FROM (SELECT X.ITEM_COST FROM X 16.46 8.73 7.73 114,563 0%
5 SELECT PROFILE_OPTION_VALUE FROM FND_PROFILE_OPTIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0%
4 SELECT PROFILE_OPTION_ID, APPLICATION_ID, SITE_ENA 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0%
3 SELECT FPOV.PROFILE_OPTION_VALUE FROM FND_PROFILE_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0%
----------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------- ---------- ----------- --------------
total 5,051.91 4,950.74 101.17 541,656,408 100%
The statement# 2 and 8 look having high consumption when compared to others.
Unfortunately, there is no execution plan to go forward. I recommend you getting traces for individually for each statements by i.e sqlplus. Or, check your application if your cursors of these statements are closed after they are completed. When cursors are closed, their respective execution plans are dumped to traces.
The statement# 2 and 8 look having high consumption when compared to others.
Unfortunately, there is no execution plan to go forward. I recommend you getting traces for individually for each statements by i.e sqlplus. Or, check your application if your cursors of these statements are closed after they are completed. When cursors are closed, their respective execution plans are dumped to traces.