Re: The irony of CBO

Michael Moore wrote:

>When SQL first came on the scene it was sold as a language where the user
>specified 'what' they wanted, not 'How" to retrieve it. I find it ironically
>amusing that so much effort is made to try to tell SQL 'How' to retrieve the
>data using cryptic hints and the esoteric knowledge of SQL CBO gurus.
>
>

I beg to differ. I was actually much more inclined to perform tricks on RBO then on CBO. When I did not want
an index used, I had to multiply by 1 or concatenate an empty string. CBO is not really, really complicated,
but one occasionally still needs a DBA intervention. This known as "DBA ex machina". The need
for the DBA intervention is much smaller nowadays then it used to be. Tim's site (http://www.evdbt.com) and
Wolfgang's site (http://www.centrexcc.com) contain everything about CBO that you ever wanted to know but
didn't dare to ask. Also, it is useful to take a look at: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/ind_misc.html. Unless you are a southern baptist, I advise you to read the article called "Evolution".

>Perhaps what we really need is a good PQL.
>
>

Have you tried with a cork screw? Tell me, are you THE Michael Moore? The F911 guy?

-- 
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
Ext. 121


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l