I set timing on in Sql*Plus 8.1.7.0, did a bit of DML and came out with
a time of (and I quote) "00:01:101.96".

Does that mean '1 minute, 101 point 96 seconds'?

Why is it not 2 minutes 41.96 seconds, which feels about right for the
run in question??

Or is it counting in base 32-and-a-half or something???

Regards
HJR

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> I set timing on in Sql*Plus 8.1.7.0, did a bit of DML and came out with
> a time of (and I quote) "00:01:101.96".
>
> Does that mean '1 minute, 101 point 96 seconds'?
>
> Why is it not 2 minutes 41.96 seconds, which feels about right for the
> run in question??
>
> Or is it counting in base 32-and-a-half or something???
>
> Regards
> HJR
Hi Howard,
I recall hearing mention of a bug in sqlplus' timing output. All that I
could dig up was this:
http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en...%40oracle.comX

If you run out of options, I'm sure you could contact Oracle's sqlplus
division directly by way of Christopher Jones or Alison Holloway to get
the full details.

Cheers,

Bricklen

Bricklen wrote:

> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>> I set timing on in Sql*Plus 8.1.7.0, did a bit of DML and came out
>> with a time of (and I quote) "00:01:101.96".
>>
>> Does that mean '1 minute, 101 point 96 seconds'?
>>
>> Why is it not 2 minutes 41.96 seconds, which feels about right for the
>> run in question??
>>
>> Or is it counting in base 32-and-a-half or something???
>>
>> Regards
>> HJR
>
> Hi Howard,
> I recall hearing mention of a bug in sqlplus' timing output. All that I
> could dig up was this:
> http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en...%40oracle.comX
>
>
> If you run out of options, I'm sure you could contact Oracle's sqlplus
> division directly by way of Christopher Jones or Alison Holloway to get
> the full details.

Thanks Bricklen,

It's been a while since I did much testing on 8i (and even then, that
would have been on 8.1.5 which is unaffected by what is definitely a bug
-which was, incidentally, fixed in 9.0.1).

The seconds counter doesn't reset to 0 after 59, so the seconds count is
cumulative, so my run time was actually 101.96 seconds, or 1 minute
41.96 seconds. At least, I think that's how I should interpret it!

Regards
HJR

<david-attenborough-voice>
I think you just found evidence of a
rare and elusive animal, the "Bug-a-mole".
</david-attenborough-voice>

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40910151$0$29255$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> I set timing on in Sql*Plus 8.1.7.0, did a bit of DML and came out with
> a time of (and I quote) "00:01:101.96".
>
> Does that mean '1 minute, 101 point 96 seconds'?
>

Noons wrote:

> <david-attenborough-voice>
> I think you just found evidence of a
> rare and elusive animal, the "Bug-a-mole".
> </david-attenborough-voice>
>

Like me, you're staying up too late. And like me, too, you watch too
many nature documentaries!

Bring on the Honey Badgers!!

Regards
HJR

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40910151$0$29255$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com. au>...
> I set timing on in Sql*Plus 8.1.7.0, did a bit of DML and came out with
> a time of (and I quote) "00:01:101.96".
>
> Does that mean '1 minute, 101 point 96 seconds'?
>

I did some tests once and I am pretty sure I finally discovered what
these strange timings are.

In your case it is

1 whole minute OR 101.96 seconds.

So the seconds part is correct, and the minutes part just tells you
how many minutes are in the seconds. If you set up a timer and leave
it going you can see it does the same for hours too, or if your really
unlucky some of your existing queries can be used to the same effect.

E.g.

1 hour and 1 minute and 30 seconds should display as something like

01:61:3690.00

> Why is it not 2 minutes 41.96 seconds, which feels about right for the
> run in question??

If I'm right it was almost two minutes if that sounds reasonable. I'm
not absolutely sure so I'm open to being corrected. FWIW it appears to
be 'fixed' in 10g for Windows at least.

Hth
Martin

On a different subject: have you checked your old
yahoo account? It's sending me viruses every day...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40912b51$0$32558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> Bring on the Honey Badgers!!

Noons wrote:

> On a different subject: have you checked your old
> yahoo account? It's sending me viruses every day...
>

I never use it, and it can't be sending anything, because it's at its
storage limit (ie, one day's spam). And yahoo themselves scan every
outgoing mail from their servers for viruses (or so I was led to believe).

There's been a virus lately that claims to be returned mail or failed
delivery of mail, but actually just uses spoofed email addresses. Maybe
you're suffering from that?

Regards
HJR

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:40923e85$0$442$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au. ..

> There's been a virus lately that claims to be returned mail or failed
> delivery of mail, but actually just uses spoofed email addresses. Maybe
> you're suffering from that?

Nope. My PC at home is impervious to any Winblows viruses.
This is e-mail I'm getting in my yahoo account through which
I never send e-mail. It's coming in from
howardjr2000@yahoo.com.au or someone that purports to have
that addie, with an attachment of some sort that triggers
all the yahoo virus checkers!

Did you notice that yahoo has finally stopped including virus
attachments around the 140K size? I now get regularly 80 or
so spam/virus messages in their account but hardly use more than
2 or 3% of the allocated space. Amazing: it only took them a year
or so to take some action...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam

Noons wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:40923e85$0$442$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au. ..
>
>
>>There's been a virus lately that claims to be returned mail or failed
>>delivery of mail, but actually just uses spoofed email addresses. Maybe
>>you're suffering from that?
>
>
> Nope. My PC at home is impervious to any Winblows viruses.
> This is e-mail I'm getting in my yahoo account through which
> I never send e-mail. It's coming in from
> howardjr2000@yahoo.com.au or someone that purports to have
> that addie, with an attachment of some sort that triggers
> all the yahoo virus checkers!
>
> Did you notice that yahoo has finally stopped including virus
> attachments around the 140K size? I now get regularly 80 or
> so spam/virus messages in their account but hardly use more than
> 2 or 3% of the allocated space. Amazing: it only took them a year
> or so to take some action...

Well, I don't *think* it's me. I mean, I haven't logged onto yahoo's
website, still less its mail service since about November of last year
if memory serves.

I just have now, of course, and there's nothing obvious to indicate mail
being sent to you at all.

Sorry. Not much I can do, I think.

Regards
HJR