RE: Materialized Views 9i vs 10g
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:16:10 -0700
Message-ID: <8DC04761D4E2734EA65935501DB2C8E301311D1F686F_at_SEAPXCH7MBX01.amer.gettywan.com>
Yes, stats have not been gathered as of yet...I am guessing that is the issue...
Thanks,
Chuck
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Boddy
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Andrew Kerber
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: RE: Materialized Views 9i vs 10g
Hi Andrew,
That could be it. That would make sense. I'm the developer(and implementer) of the Materialized Views. I will pass this on to the DBA's and see what the answer is.
Thank you very much,
Chuck
From: Andrew Kerber [mailto:andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:54 AM
To: Chuck Boddy
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: Re: Materialized Views 9i vs 10g
Did you re-gather stats on the underlying tables when you went to 10g?
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Boddy <Chuck.Boddy_at_gettyimages.com<mailto:Chuck.Boddy_at_gettyimages.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I am taking Materialized Views that were initially built on a 9i database and rebuilding them on a 10g database - verbatim. I am noticing that the performance is noticeably degraded. Checked out the Explain Plan on 9i vs 10g for some the materialized views, and they would indicate that on 10g, the materialized views should at least perform the same OR performance should be approved. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Chuck
--
Andrew W. Kerber
'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Aug 19 2010 - 12:16:10 CDT