tomers **
>-Original Message-
>From: Potluri, Venu (CT Appl Suppt) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:44 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: A performance problem
>
>
>I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle
You are all correct. I am not really trying to figure out why this feed ran 20 hours
from the statspack report. I am trying to find out what if anything happened in the
database that might have
contributed to this job running this long. We do analyze objects in some schemas via a
Concurrent job
, Venu (CT Appl Suppt)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/12/29 Mon PM 01:14:34 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: A performance problem
>
> John,
>
> I can run this in our development environment and trace the j
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:44 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: A performance problem
>
>
>I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle Apps
>production environment (Oracle 8.1.7.4). A concurrent job that
>feeds into
Over what time frame was the statspack report taken. The 5,809,277 cs of db
file sequential read equates to 16+ hours and the 1,960,168 cs of SQL*Net
message from dblink for 5+ hours. Of course, some of these waits could be
concurrent rather than sequential.
But, as John already pointed out, you
://www.needhim.org' for Grace and Mercy that is freely
> available!
>
> ** The opinions and facts contained in this message are entirely mine and
do
> not reflect those of my employer or customers **
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Potluri, Venu (CT Appl
e recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: RE: A performance problem
>
>
>John,
>
>I can run this in our development environment and trace the
>job. But, the data is quite a bit larger in production. I
>can't really take on a refresh/clone now and the prodcution
>datab
nts of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: A performance problem
>
> The other database in on a different server.
>
> I looked at the statspack report for the other database, for the time period in
> question.
>
> Top 5 Timed Events
> ~~
inal Message-
>From: Potluri, Venu (CT Appl Suppt) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:44 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: A performance problem
>
>
>I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle Apps
>production environment
e the plan changed do to a change in data or you dont have accurate statistics or
a parameter setting changed?
>
> From: "Potluri, Venu (CT Appl Suppt)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/12/29 Mon AM 11:44:24 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL
44 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: A performance problem
>
>
>I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle Apps
>production environment (Oracle 8.1.7.4). A concurrent job that
>feeds into another production envrironment (Oracle 9.2) and
>runs less than
; From: "Potluri, Venu (CT Appl Suppt)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/12/29 Mon AM 11:44:24 EST
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: A performance problem
>
> I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle Apps production en
I have a performance issue in our 11.5.5 Oracle Apps production environment (Oracle
8.1.7.4). A concurrent job that feeds into another production envrironment (Oracle
9.2) and runs less than an hour
typically suddenly took almost 20 hours to finish. The users are as expected up in
arms calling m
ing at.
Dan
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:29 AM
> Hi gurus,
>
> Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
> One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
> perfor
Do you have primary keys etc and hint file? Also do you have constraints disabled. Some "Nelson, Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since the results of triggers firing in the source will appear in thelog files, then in general you do not want the same triggers firing inthe target. Similarly since d
pdated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ --
ne of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS
gt;
> Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
> One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
> performance problem
>
> Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
> Here is the output of v$session_event
startup?
Allan
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on
ated by Shareplex, and we have a
huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ -- ---
-
been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ -- --
g?
Just some things to start looking at.
Dan
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:29 AM
> Hi gurus,
>
> Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
> One of our databases has been updated by Sha
and startup?
Allan
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process runn
databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
upgrading to a faster CPU would
help.
My comments are just a generalisation.
Hemant
At 07:29 AM 23-10-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on t
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
Title: RE: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned tab
here the trace :
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = CHOOSE 2 72 1368
FOR UPDATE
FILTER
PARTITION
Did you explain plan? I suspect FTS taking place in case of NOT EXISTS.
It must be using Range scan for the non partitioned table.
Can you confirm / post the explain plan.
GovindanK
> Here the informations :
> table HREL_FUSION :
> 63 millions rows
> 3 indexes on columns : nodos_or,
Title: RE: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned table - not sql*loader problem but cursor pb!
Here the informations :
table HREL_FUSION :
63 millions rows
3 indexes on columns : nodos_or, nodos_or, numcli <--- too much indexes ??
ta
n the same object are locks on
seperate partitions. Not sure.
>
> From: "NGUYEN Philippe (Cetelem)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/09/03 Wed AM 09:59:27 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performanc
Title: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned table
thankx for all those
advbices, actually, the problem does not come from the
sql*loader but from this particular statement :
SELECT NULL FROM
hrel_fusion WHERE cod_rel =
:b1 AND dat_rel =
:b2
Hello
Did you check alert.log for any unusual messages? May be it is using lot of
rollback / archiving.
You can use unrecoverable option to load. You have not mentioned whether
you are using direct load or not.
Check if too many extents are getting allocated at runtime. That is
going to slow dow
Yesterday i posted a reply on this .. but did not reach.
Check if too much logging taking place. Avoid this with loading as
UNRECOVERABLE; Or else Presort the data on the index key to minimise
the use of Temp segment. As of now i am able to think of only these two.
HTH
GovindanK
> Hi gurus,
> we
Title: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned table
thank U Dennis,
I use local index,
the script is still running (2hours now! instead of 10-20 min) and here is the statement in question (the script who used non-partionned table is already ended)
SELECT NULL
FROM
Title: RE: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned table
precision : Oracle 8.1.7.3 (64 bits) in Solaris 8
-Message d'origine-
De : NGUYEN Philippe (Cetelem)
Envoyé : 02 September 2003 18:14
À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Objet : URGENT : sql*loader perform
Philippe
You aren't providing many details on which to base some guesses.
However, your statement "brand new disks" implies that you are adding
additional partitions to an existing table. Then, your statement "should I
drop indexes" implies that you have indexes on the partitioned table,
possi
Title: URGENT : sql*loader performance problem on partionned table
Hi gurus,
we have two daily loads that one after the other.
The first fill up a non partitionned table and the second do the same into a partitionned table.
First times the second load ran very quickly : 1 min instead of 5 min
: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:05
AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
tkprof issues - was Performance Problem
Swap is 16G, 1.2% used
RAM is 16G,
16 processors.
Raj
Rajendra dot
, having an opinion is an art !
-Original Message-From: Mladen Gogala
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:25
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
tkprof issues - was Performance Problem
Are
you sure that your swap space is sufficient
personal. QOTD: Any clod
can have facts, having an opinion is an art !
-Original Message-From: Mladen Gogala
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:50
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
Performance Problem
Nope, you're the first.
-LSubject:
tkprof issues - was Performance Problem
unable to allocate space of size 48 (couple of time
50).
run as root too so no ulimits ...
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot
com
Behalf Of
Jamadagni, RajendraSent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:54
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
Performance Problem
Funny ...
I have tkprof give up analyzing a 4.2G tracefile on a 64bit
platform. anyone else experienced thi
Laura, I really believe that you should take the 10046 and then contact
Hotsos.
It may and probably will save you some time and aggravation. They're not
very expensive,
around $50 per file analyzed.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
-Original Message-
Burton, Laura
Sent: Tuesday, August 26,
Title: RE: Performance Problem
Funny ...
I have tkprof give up analyzing a 4.2G tracefile on a 64bit platform. anyone else experienced this??
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com
All Views
Laura,
You might find the problem by checking the things you plan to check, and
by following the advice of the book you're using. But the odds are very
good that you will not. At least not for a long time...
Any application program on your system can tell you where it is spending
its time. Let it
No, I had read not to analyze the sys tables in the 'TIP' section of the
book I am using as a reference (Oracle Performance Tuning/Tips &
Techniques). As I stated earlier, I also made sure that I analyzed all
the tables and indexes that were involved, because I had read that
leaving a table 'un'an
ust 25, 2003 4:49 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Performance Problem
>
>
> We currently have an application we are trying to speed up. In
> researching rule/cost based optimizers, I read that the cost based
> optimizer was the way to go (although rule h
Title: RE: Performance Problem
'her' ??
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
Mladen's advice actually covers that. No matter what's causing the slow
performance, if something's taking time, then it will show up in the
10046 trace data. "That's why we love her so."
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- Hotsos Clinic 101 in Sydney
-
'Laura' On Monday, August 25, 2003 1:49 PM said;
> We currently have an application we are trying to speed up. In
> researching rule/cost based optimizers, I read that the cost based
> optimizer was the way to go (although rule had its moments) because that
> is where Oracle would be focusing any
Laura,
Keep in mind that analyzing tables/indexes will invalidate related SQL in
the shared pool. If you have Statspack snapshots at that time, you will see
that both latching (for shared pool/library cache) as well as waits for
'library cache pin/locks/loads' was high at that time. You may have o
To speed up the application, you have to know where the time is spent.
Initial estimates can be made based on V$SESSION_WAIT and V$SESSION_EVENT
for
the application sessions, but to go really deep, you need a detailed
performance
analysis, based on timings and waits produced by the event 10046, lev
"Burton, Laura" wrote:
>
> We currently have an application we are trying to speed up. In
> researching rule/cost based optimizers, I read that the cost based
> optimizer was the way to go (although rule had its moments) because that
> is where Oracle would be focusing any upgrades, enhancements,
Was it always slow ?
Are you monitoring specifics jobs ? If so, have you run tkprof your main SQL
statements ?
When running, what are the main ressources Oracle is waiting on ?
Have you monitor from the OS ? Are you IO bound or CPU bound ?
Cost base optimiser in 805 is not as good as on 8i or 9
We currently have an application we are trying to speed up. In
researching rule/cost based optimizers, I read that the cost based
optimizer was the way to go (although rule had its moments) because that
is where Oracle would be focusing any upgrades, enhancements, etc.
So I analyzed all tables an
Hi Listers,
Configuration :
Software : Aix 4.3.3 / Oracle 9.2.0.3
Hardware ; 6 CPU, 16 Go RAM,
DAS clarriion FC4500 with 2 Storage Processors (SP)
1 Fibre channel link by SP
10 x 36 Go Disks
512 Mo of cache
Disk c
: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Asunto: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance problem
Just curious: why are you using PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET? Are there any limits
on memory capacity that you are in danger of exceeding? You have two CPUs
with 4Gb of RAM; I imagine that you're not in any danger, b
good one).
>
>
>
>
> Hemant K
> Chitale To: Multiple recipients of
list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> et.com.sg>Subject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0
> > SORT_AREA_SIZE recommendation is a good one).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hemant K
> > Chitale To: Multiple recipients of
> list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
init.ora files (Hemant's
> SORT_AREA_SIZE recommendation is a good one).
>
>
>
>
> Hemant K
> Chitale To: Multiple recipients of
list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Subject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance
problem
Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
20-01-03 -0800, you wrote:
Hello
We have an serious performance problem on a DSS
db.
We buy a new HP rp5405 (2x650Mhz, 4GB, ...)
with HP UX 11.11
Oracle 9.2.0.2 tooks 30 min doing this query
where an Intel 2x1,4 Ghz tooks 9 min only.
We have in the HP losts of buffers(1,5GB), sga(200MB), pga(
Mario, no can do, its already been deleted.
joe
> Broodbakker, Mario would like to recall the message, "Oracle 9.2.0.2
performance problem".
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
> --
> Author: Broodbakker, Mario
> INET: [EMAIL PROT
Broodbakker, Mario would like to recall the message, "Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance
problem".
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Broodbakker, Mario
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
ry 20, 2003 7:35 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance problem
>
>
>
> Hello
>
> We execute the query in the servers, so there is no NET
> problem (I think).
> The data volume is exact (imported).
> Execution path is
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:35 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance problem
>
>
>
> Hello
>
> We execute the query in the servers, so there is no NET
> problem (I think).
> The data volume is ex
12:19
Para: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Asunto: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance problem
Juan Miranda,
It seems quite strange,there is little wait event in the statspack
report,
and you execution path should be the same on both platform, right? And is
the data volumn the sa
different?Is the speed of your pc to linux and hp the same?
Regards
zhu chao
msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.happyit.net
www.cnoug.org(China Oracle User Group)
=== 2003-01-20 01:59:00 ,you wrote£º===
>Hello
>
>We have an serious performance problem on a DSS db.
>
Hello
We have an serious
performance problem on a DSS db.
We buy a new HP
rp5405 (2x650Mhz, 4GB, ...) with HP UX 11.11
Oracle 9.2.0.2 tooks
30 min doing this query where an Intel 2x1,4 Ghz tooks 9 min only.
We have in the
HP losts of buffers(1,5GB), sga(200MB), pga(500MB), fast i/O
;
> >
> >
> >John Kanagaraj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 01/08/2003 01:55 PM
> > Please respond to ORACLE-L
> >
> >
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc:
o: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Statspack performance problem
Jared,
Did you snap with the default value of 5? If so, then the SNAP proceduer
will have to scan / sort V$SQLAREA and that can be very time-consuming. If
TECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/08/2003 01:55 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Statspack performance problem
Jared,
Did you snap with the default value of 5? If so, t
employer or clients **
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:45 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Statspack performance problem
>
>
> List,
>
> Is anyone awar
ECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/08/2003 11:21 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Statspack performance problem
Jared,
Obvious question, but have to tried to trace it to se
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:45 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
List,
Is anyone aware of performance problems with statspack on 8.1.6.3 on
Windoze?
By performance problem, I mean that statspack.snap runs for several
minutes
before I eventual
Title: RE: Statspack performance problem
Jared,
Obvious question, but have to tried to trace it to see which statement it is hanging??
Raj
__
Rajendra Jamadagni MIS, ESPN Inc.
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at ESPN dot com
Any
List,
Is anyone aware of performance problems with statspack on 8.1.6.3 on
Windoze?
By performance problem, I mean that statspack.snap runs for several
minutes
before I eventually kill it.
Trying to check on MetaLink, but it isn't responding at the moment.
Thanks,
Jared
--
Please se
Oracle 8.1.6 Win Nt
Has anyone experience/heard of performace problems after migrating from
forms 5 to forms 6.0.8.15 and from reports 2.5 to 3.0?
Thanks
Rick
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author:
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services-- 85
I have seen something like this in the past and it was because there were
two tables - named the same in two different schemas (public synonym,
private synonym and all that mess)..
Do you know whether this could be the same case as yours?
Also check to see if the explain plan differs when u run
I have seen something like this in the past and it was because there were
two tables - named the same in two different schemas (public synonym,
private synonym and all that mess)..
Do you know whether this could be the same case as yours?
Also check to see if the explain plan differs when u run
I have seen something like this in the past and it was because there were
two tables - named the same in two different schemas (public synonym,
private synonym and all that mess)..
Do you know whether this could be the same case as yours?
Also check to see if the explain plan differs when u run
I got a call from a customer earlier. He said that he was trying to
run a query and it was taking way too long. He ran the same query last
Friday and it came back in seconds. I looked at it in OEM and noticed
that two of the tables were being accessed by full table scans. These
tables have
Scott,
I don't understand " I have tried to capture a
session, but I need to get a repository up to look at the trace that was
generated. "
No mention of Oracle versions or even O/S levels but I am sure you have
Statspack available which should give you a good start.
So have an overall view of t
in addition you could also have
I/O and or CPU problems so check those things
out too.
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:31 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
I have done this before and I always do it
on a test machine first as everything that
has been tuned up to this
I have done this before and I always do it
on a test machine first as everything that
has been tuned up to this point is now at step
1 all over again.
Did you import everything properly ? Indexes ?
Make sure your schema objects are analyzed again.
Find out the time of the day where the
Hi Scott,
I wouldn't worry about the hit ratios. Have you tried to find badly
performing SQL. The chances are the execution plan may have changed for some of
the frequently used SQL. When you doubled the block size, did you halve the
db_file_multiblock_read_count ? The optimizer may be pref
Scott - I would approach this as a standard tuning problem, and try to avoid
making assumptions about what the answer is. Find out what the system waits
are. STATSPACK is pretty good at listing your waits. Otherwise, there are
scripts available that you can run. Make sure the database is waiting f
I have an interesting problem. I recently migrated a database from
a Digital Unix system to a Sun Solaris system, with an EMC disk array.
Since I was going to be migrating the database, I decided to double the
block size from 4k to 8k. I also created the tablespaces on the new box
as locally
nd wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have encountered a performance problem. I use
> "Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
> > Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
> >
> > I have two tables. "phonenumber" and "person",
>
> I'm not sure what you want since your query doesn't correspond to what
> you are saying you want. Therefore no sample just a general statement,
> use minus.
>
> > SELECT personid FROM phonenumber WHERE personid NOT IN (
> >SELECT personid FROM person);
> >
> > I'm wondering how I could res
Finally! :)
Richard Huntley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/25/2002 07:48 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: NOT IN performance problem
Ni
select personid from person_table
minus
select personid from phonenumber_table
/
Nils Höglund wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
> Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
>
> I have two tables. "phonen
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
> Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
>
> I have two tables. "phonenumber" and "person", each person has none, one or
> many phonenumb
Title: RE: NOT IN performance problem
Nils, try this...(replaces NOT IN with an Outer Join)
select a.id from person a, phonenumber b
where a.id = b.id(+)
and b.id is null;
-Original Message-
From: Nils Höglund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:08 AM
To
t; Hello,
>
> I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise
Edition
> Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
>
> I have two tables. "phonenumber" and "person", each person has none, one
or
> many phonenumbers referenced to him.
>
Try EXISTS.
SELECT personid FROM person WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 0 FROM phonenumber WHERE person.personid=phonenumber.personid
);
You'll get all persons without any telephone number.
JP
On Tuesday 25 June 2002 15:08, Nils Höglund wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered
-
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:08 PM
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise
Edition
> Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
>
> I have two t
C'mon, Larry, don't be shy :-)
>
>Hello,
>
>I have encountered a performance problem. I use
>"Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
>Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
>
>I have two tables. "phonenumber" and "person", each
>pers
select personid from person
where not exists (select '1' from phonenumber
where personid = person.personid);
Nils Höglund wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
> Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
&
Hello,
I have encountered a performance problem. I use "Oracle8 Enterprise Edition
Release 8.0.5.0.0 - Production."
I have two tables. "phonenumber" and "person", each person has none, one or
many phonenumbers referenced to him.
The phonenumber-table is structu
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
