Performance of implicit cursors vs anonymous blocks

Hey all,

Thanks for the input on the MAX problem. The idea of the statement itself was to help determine if it was better for us to have a SELECT...INTO statement in an implicit FOR..LOOP cursor or to just surround the SELECT statement with an anonymous block to check for NO_DATA_FOUND.

>From several 10046 traces, it seems that on our HP/UX 11.0 test system on
8.1.7.4 that the implicit cursors used about 66% more CPU, with all else being equal.

My question: Is the savings in CPU worth any potential downside of anonymous blocks (I assume that there could be extra "pressure" applied to the shared pool?)

TIA once again,
Rich

Rich Jesse                           System/Database Administrator
Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com              Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jesse, Rich
  INET: Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).