Re: Function Based Index
From: Purav Chovatia <puravc_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:51:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CADrzpjFJYrP13Q=BRetuWZTNhbzz2ua6KZ+qynj8iWxtTHxFuQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Forced to use the index and the cost that CBO comes up with, is higher. Also verified the same with a 10053 trace. Cannot understand why is the cost high?
Any way that any of you folks know, except hints, to make the CBO use the index and go for an index range scan?
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:51:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CADrzpjFJYrP13Q=BRetuWZTNhbzz2ua6KZ+qynj8iWxtTHxFuQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Forced to use the index and the cost that CBO comes up with, is higher. Also verified the same with a 10053 trace. Cannot understand why is the cost high?
Any way that any of you folks know, except hints, to make the CBO use the index and go for an index range scan?
Thanks.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Purav Chovatia <puravc_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> KEEP pool is configured for the instance. And the table is configured to
> be cached in the KEEP pool.
>
> Could that be the reason for either of the observations that I have made?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Sep 10 2012 - 10:21:03 CDT