Timestamp in the trace files
in [Oracle]
|
From: Mladen Gogala on 6 Jan 2010 14:27 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:37:14 +0100, Maxim Demenko wrote: > On 06.01.2010 19:02, Mladen Gogala wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:40:43 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote: >> >>> I am analyzing a trace file and the developer asked me when has this >>> event taken place: >>> >>> ===================== >>> PARSING IN CURSOR #3 len=159 dep=0 uid=141 oct=3 lid=141 >>> tim=1233122414291746 hv=3402358638 ad='9a174550' select >>> folderarti0_.segment# as col_0_0_, folderarti0_.FOLDER# as col_1_0_ >>> from FOLDER_ARTICLES folderarti0_ where folderarti0_.segment# in (:1 , >>> :2 , :3 , :4) >>> END OF STMT >>> >>> In other words, how can I convert the "tim" field into time and date? >> >> Please ignore. I figured it out. The "tim" field represents the >> difference in microseconds. It's not the real time.That should be an >> improvement request that one would have to send to Oracle. >> >> >> >> > May it help? > http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Oracle-10046-tim-e-and-ela- Values-use-Nanoseconds1024-not-Microseconds-on-some-Platforms > > http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Trace-file-tim-values > > Best regards > > Maxim This is not really helpful. The application has run on 05-Jan-2009. Here is what I get when I try using "seconds from 1970": Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. 1233122401969823/1000000 1233122401 scale=2 1233122401969823/1000000 1233122401.96 1233122402 1233122402 mgogala(a)nycwxp2622:~$ perl -e '@dt=localtime(1233122402); printf("%d.%d.%d \n",$dt[4],$dt[3],$dt[5]);' 0.28.109 The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off. -- http://mgogala.byethost5.com
From: Steve Howard on 6 Jan 2010 14:50 On Jan 6, 2:27 pm, Mladen Gogala <n...(a)email.here.invalid> wrote: > 1233122401.96 > 1233122402 > 1233122402 > mgogala(a)nycwxp2622:~$ perl -e '@dt=localtime(1233122402); printf("%d.%d..%d > \n",$dt[4],$dt[3],$dt[5]);' > 0.28.109 > > The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off. > > --http://mgogala.byethost5.com I wrote in Python something to do this that isn't perfect, but is close. It's actually pretty cheezy, too. Basically, get the first time on the trace file, and that becomes your baseline... """ *** ACTION NAME:() 2009-10-01 09:00:01.757 *** MODULE NAME:(sqlplus(a)oh1xpwcdb01 (TNS V1-V3)) 2009-10-01 09:00:01.757 *** SERVICE NAME:(SYS$USERS) 2009-10-01 09:00:01.757 *** SESSION ID:(1212.19284) 2009-10-01 09:00:01.757 """ ....then get the first "tim=" value, and assume no time has transpired between the time printed above and this first time. Yeah, I said it was cheezy :) Diff that tim= and all that follow, and add to the original time printed above. It will be within less than a second, anyway, which is usually close enough. I have been messing around with a 10046 trace parser that does this kind of stuff for a year or so, and it still isn't finished, but I have used what I have and it has been very valuable. If someone wants a copy, let me know and I will upload it.
From: Maxim Demenko on 6 Jan 2010 15:02 On 06.01.2010 20:27, Mladen Gogala wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:37:14 +0100, Maxim Demenko wrote: > >> On 06.01.2010 19:02, Mladen Gogala wrote: >>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:40:43 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote: >>> >>>> I am analyzing a trace file and the developer asked me when has this >>>> event taken place: >>>> >>>> ===================== >>>> PARSING IN CURSOR #3 len=159 dep=0 uid=141 oct=3 lid=141 >>>> tim=1233122414291746 hv=3402358638 ad='9a174550' select >>>> folderarti0_.segment# as col_0_0_, folderarti0_.FOLDER# as col_1_0_ >>>> from FOLDER_ARTICLES folderarti0_ where folderarti0_.segment# in (:1 , >>>> :2 , :3 , :4) >>>> END OF STMT >>>> >>>> In other words, how can I convert the "tim" field into time and date? >>> >>> Please ignore. I figured it out. The "tim" field represents the >>> difference in microseconds. It's not the real time.That should be an >>> improvement request that one would have to send to Oracle. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> May it help? >> http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Oracle-10046-tim-e-and-ela- > Values-use-Nanoseconds1024-not-Microseconds-on-some-Platforms >> >> http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Trace-file-tim-values >> >> Best regards >> >> Maxim > > This is not really helpful. The application has run on 05-Jan-2009. Here > is what I get when I try using "seconds from 1970": > > Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software > Foundation, Inc. > This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. > For details type `warranty'. > 1233122401969823/1000000 > 1233122401 > scale=2 > 1233122401969823/1000000 > 1233122401.96 > 1233122402 > 1233122402 > mgogala(a)nycwxp2622:~$ perl -e '@dt=localtime(1233122402); printf("%d.%d.%d > \n",$dt[4],$dt[3],$dt[5]);' > 0.28.109 > > The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off. > > > How that? In the first link i supplied, was suggested, on linux and solaris tim values are in nanoseconds/1024. This suggestion fits perfectly in your example: SQL> select date '1970-01-01' + (1233122414291746 * 1024 * 1e-9 /60/60/24 ) 2 from dual; DATE'1970-01-01'+(1 ------------------- 05.01.2010 18:49:12 Best regards Maxim
From: Maxim Demenko on 6 Jan 2010 15:10 On 06.01.2010 21:02, Maxim Demenko wrote: > On 06.01.2010 20:27, Mladen Gogala wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:37:14 +0100, Maxim Demenko wrote: >> >>> On 06.01.2010 19:02, Mladen Gogala wrote: >>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:40:43 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am analyzing a trace file and the developer asked me when has this >>>>> event taken place: >>>>> >>>>> ===================== >>>>> PARSING IN CURSOR #3 len=159 dep=0 uid=141 oct=3 lid=141 >>>>> tim=1233122414291746 hv=3402358638 ad='9a174550' select >>>>> folderarti0_.segment# as col_0_0_, folderarti0_.FOLDER# as col_1_0_ >>>>> from FOLDER_ARTICLES folderarti0_ where folderarti0_.segment# in (:1 , >>>>> :2 , :3 , :4) >>>>> END OF STMT >>> >> >> This is not really helpful. The application has run on 05-Jan-2009. Here >> is what I get when I try using "seconds from 1970": >> The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off. >> > > DATE'1970-01-01'+(1 > ------------------- > 05.01.2010 18:49:12 > > > Best regards > > Maxim > Sorry, of course, i am interpreting your words like it better suit my needs ;-) But either your meant to say "The application has run on 05-Jan-2010" - in that case my previous post still applies, or it run indeed on 05-Jan-2009 and my math is wrong, but then it is unclear with "The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off". Best regards Maxim
From: Steve Howard on 6 Jan 2010 16:46 On Jan 6, 3:10 pm, Maxim Demenko <mdeme...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 06.01.2010 21:02, Maxim Demenko wrote: > > > > > On 06.01.2010 20:27, Mladen Gogala wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:37:14 +0100, Maxim Demenko wrote: > > >>> On 06.01.2010 19:02, Mladen Gogala wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:40:43 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote: > > >>>>> I am analyzing a trace file and the developer asked me when has this > >>>>> event taken place: > > >>>>> ===================== > >>>>> PARSING IN CURSOR #3 len=159 dep=0 uid=141 oct=3 lid=141 > >>>>> tim=1233122414291746 hv=3402358638 ad='9a174550' select > >>>>> folderarti0_.segment# as col_0_0_, folderarti0_.FOLDER# as col_1_0_ > >>>>> from FOLDER_ARTICLES folderarti0_ where folderarti0_.segment# in (:1 , > >>>>> :2 , :3 , :4) > >>>>> END OF STMT > > >> This is not really helpful. The application has run on 05-Jan-2009. Here > >> is what I get when I try using "seconds from 1970": > >> The result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off. > > > DATE'1970-01-01'+(1 > > ------------------- > > 05.01.2010 18:49:12 > > > Best regards > > > Maxim > > Sorry, of course, i am interpreting your words like it better suit my > needs ;-) > But either your meant to say "The application has run on 05-Jan-2010" - > in that case my previous post still applies, or it run indeed on > 05-Jan-2009 and my math is wrong, but then it is unclear with "The > result is January 28th, 2009, which is almost a year off". > > Best regards > > Maxim It doesn't work for me either... SQL> !date Wed Jan 6 16:44:47 EST 2010 SQL> alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever, level 1'; Session altered. SQL> select 1 from dual; 1 ---------- 1 SQL> !ls -lrt | tail -1 -rw-r----- 1 oracle dba 1923 2010-01-06 16:45 wcasprod_ora_3974.trc SQL> !grep PARSE wcasprod_ora_3974.trc PARSE #3:c=0,e=34,p=0,cr=0,cu=0,mis=0,r=0,dep=0,og=1,tim=1233217089752915 PARSE #2:c=0,e=1029,p=0,cr=0,cu=0,mis=1,r=0,dep=0,og=1,tim=1233217094339231 PARSE #3:c=0,e=39,p=0,cr=0,cu=0,mis=0,r=0,dep=0,og=1,tim=1233217094340214 SQL> select to_date('1970-01-01','YYYY-MM-DD') + (&1/1000000) / 86400 from dual 2 / Enter value for 1: 1233217089752915 TO_DATE('1970-01-01','YYYY-MM ----------------------------- 29-JAN-2009 08:18:10 SQL>
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Oracle DBA Required Urgently in Blythewood, SC Next: Quick move tablespace |