no_index is a valid hint ... it tells Oracle that exclude specified index from your consideration.
Raj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal.
QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:34 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: concatenated index
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Mark Richard
> Sent: 08 July 2003 06:09
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: concatenated index
>
>
>
> I didn't mean that including RULE will prevent the index from
> being used - I should have explained myself better. When
> using the RULE based optimisor the order of joins in the
> where clause becomes significant, I don't believe the order
> of selection criteria is significant (although I have very
> little experience with the rule based optimisor and could
> easily be proven wrong).
>
> If you really don't want Oracle to use the index (and
> assuming statistics are correct but you know something Oracle
> doesn't) then try:
>
> /*+ NO_INDEX(test) */
I think that should read /*+ FULL(test) */
Niall
********************************************************************This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify corporate MIS at (860) 766-2000 and delete this e-mail message from your computer, Thank you.*********************************************************************2
