> > Hello Robert

> > I spent two weeks (!) investigating the question.
> > I required support from the vendor, sent them detailed informations.
> > I let users do different tests.
> > I collected and printed performance numbers, execution plans, looked
> > into waits, used AWR, ADDM, SQL Tuning Advisors, statistics
> > with/without histograms. I was playing with different init parameters
> > (mostly making things even worse). I set up a clone database, did more
> > tests... hey! Let's stop.

> > As you can see from other replies, you are guessing wrong. (Typical
> > case when people try to complicate obvious things).

> What exactly did I guess?  While you mention "obvious": all the items
> you list above were not obvious from your first posting.  All that you
> mentioned was that "after some investigation" you found an
> undocumented parameter that seemingly fixed the issue.  While you are
> obviously aware of all this, others are not.

> > If the software is just misbehaving, all this knowledge is for
> > nothing. Almost every query was doing FTS of huge tables, main
> > activity was direct path read. Same application was still installed in
> > the old server running 9i: Execution plans were completely different.
> > So what? It could have been something different than direct path
> > reads, it does not bear any direct logical relationship to the
> > solution. Based on this "knowledge", you would probably... buy more
> > disks?? Wrong!

> No need to get agitated.