Re: What hint would you try?
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:22:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4DF244BB.2040505_at_roughsea.com>
+1. Took me some time to get accustomed to the ANSI syntax, but I find it more legible too. And I have never been able to directly link a performance issue to a use of the ANSI syntax; on the other hand, I have never tried *just* changing the syntax of joins and my own understanding of tuning is rather heavy-handed.
SF
On 06/10/2011 05:49 PM, Adric Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:41, Wolfgang Breitling
> <breitliw_at_centrexcc.com <mailto:breitliw_at_centrexcc.com>> wrote:
>
> I should have added - neither do I.
>
> When a developer comes to me for help tuning a sql with ANSI join
> syntax and I can't see the solution within about 5 minutes I tell
> them to come back with the sql rewritten in Oracle join syntax
> because neither I nor the optimizer speak ANSI.
>
>
> Personally, I prefer the ANSI syntax... largely because it provides a
> clear delineation between the join conditions, and the potentially
> hundreds of miscellaneous filters which are present for some unknown
> (to me) reason. I also find the outer join syntax easier to parse,
> compared to deciphering a headache-inducing proliferation of "(+)"
> scattered throughout the WHERE clause.
>
> Over the past year or two I've often rewritten queries to use ANSI
> syntax during troubleshooting, in an effort to better understand what
> they're actually doing. Now this doesn't mean that the final version
> is always in ANSI form, but I've found making the effort to be very
> helpful nonetheless. As usual, your mileage may vary.
>
> In my experience, at least, 11gR2 seems to understand and handle the
> ANSI syntax quite well. I've only used it sparingly on earlier
> versions, so no comment there.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Jun 10 2011 - 11:22:19 CDT