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
: 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 environment (Oracle
8.1.7.4). A concurrent job
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 an hour
typically suddenly took almost 20 hours to finish
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 PROTECTED]
Subject: A performance problem
I
: 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 (Oracle 8.1.7.4). A concurrent job that
feeds
: 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
~~% Total
Event
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
database is over 600GB
in size. We do have trace
employer or customers **
-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 Apps
production
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,
: 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 another production envrironment (Oracle 9.2) and
runs less than
) [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 job. But, the data is
quite a bit larger in production. I can't really take
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
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 (Oracle 8.1.7.4). A concurrent job
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 this database.
Here
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$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:29 AM
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process
, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ -- ---
17
have a
huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ -- ---
17 latch free
: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi gurus,
Oracle 8.1.7.3 on Sun Solaris
One of our databases has been updated by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v
by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
by Shareplex, and we have a huge
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here is the output of v$session_event
SID EVENT TOTAL_WAITS TOTAL_TIMEOUTS TIME_WAITED
AVERAGE_WAIT
-- ------ -- ---
17 latch free
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
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
performance problem
Shareplex is the only process running on this database.
Here
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 RANGE SINGLE
TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID FICOM HREL_FUSION 2 72 1368
INDEX RANGE SCAN FICOM
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 ??
table primedi_enr2_temp_fusion : 133
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: 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 performance problem
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
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
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
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 AND NOT EXISTS
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 performance problem on partionned table
thank U Dennis,
I use local index
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
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,
possibly
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. What happened
, 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
: 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
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 is an art
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 had its moments) because that
is where
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
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
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, 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 $50 per file analyzed.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
-Original Message-
Burton, Laura
Sent: Tuesday, August
Of
Jamadagni, RajendraSent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:54
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
Performance Problem
Funny ...
I have tkprof give up analyzing a 4.2G tracefile on a 64bit
platform. anyone else experienced this??
Raj
-LSubject:
tkprof issues - was Performance Problem
unable to allocate space of size 48 (couple of time
50).
run as root too so no ulimits ...
Raj
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot
com All
Was it always slow ?
Are you monitoring specifics jobs ? If so, have you run tkprof your main SQL
statements ?
When running, what are the main ressources Oracle is waiting on ?
Have you monitor from the OS ? Are you IO bound or CPU bound ?
Cost base optimiser in 805 is not as good as on 8i or
Burton, Laura wrote:
We currently have an application we are trying to speed up. In
researching rule/cost based optimizers, I read that the cost based
optimizer was the way to go (although rule had its moments) because that
is where Oracle would be focusing any upgrades, enhancements, etc.
To speed up the application, you have to know where the time is spent.
Initial estimates can be made based on V$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,
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
'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
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
-
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
: 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
To: Multiple recipients of
list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hkchital@singn cc:
et.com.sgSubject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2
performance problem
Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m
).
Hemant K
Chitale To: Multiple recipients of
list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hkchital@singn cc:
et.com.sgSubject: Re: Oracle
9.2.0.2
performance problem
PROTECTED]
hkchital@singn cc:
et.com.sgSubject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2
performance problem
Sent by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m
22/01/2003
00:49
-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(500MB
:
et.com.sgSubject: Re: Oracle 9.2.0.2 performance
problem
Sent
Hello
We have an serious
performance problem on aDSS 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
HPlosts of buffers(1,5GB), sga(200MB), pga(500MB), fast i/O (EMC
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.
We buy a new HP
: 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 same in both
: 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 exact (imported).
Execution path is the same, full-scan
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 the same, full-scan.
This is a very strange problem and is very
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
San Diego
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 PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services
my own and not those of
my
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 aware
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
you are CPU starved or have very high
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 see
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 opinion expressed
]
-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 eventually kill
]
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 see which statement it
is hanging??
Raj
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 aware of performance problems with statspack
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, then the SNAP proceduer
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--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 structured like:
phonenumber.personid
phonenumber.phonenumber
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 structured like:
phonenumber.personid
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.
I have two tables. phonenumber and person
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
person has none, one or
many phonenumbers referenced to him.
The phonenumber-table
-
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 tables. phonenumber and person, each person has none, one
or
many
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 a performance
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 structured like:
phonenumber.personid
phonenumber.phonenumber
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
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.
I'm not sure what you want since your query doesn't
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. phonenumber and person, each person has none, one
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
Nils, try this...(replaces
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 restructure or
Hi DBA's,
I've been trying to isolate the bottleneck with our Oracle database.
I work as an Oracle DBA for the Government of a developing country (Belize).
Recently, as it is income tax time, the department has to reconcile all
witholdings by the employer with their payment receipt
records.
Denmark Weatherburne wrote:
I know tuning the SQL might be required, however, I don't have much
experience in this area. The SQL statemements were written by consultants
who have long left. We do have the source code though.
Ak for your money back. You are right, usually SQL is the reason.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: bcc: Subject: Please help resolving report generation performance problem... Hi DBA's,I've been trying to isolate the bottleneck with our Oracle database.I work as an Oracle DBA for the Government of a developing country (Belize).Recently, as it is income tax time
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
