Re: RULE or COST based???

From: Karsten Farell <kfarrell_at_medimpact.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:09:58 GMT
Message-ID: <qeGp9.4459$oE1.197866534@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>

Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:37:42 GMT, Karsten Farell
> <kfarrell_at_medimpact.com> wrote:
>
>

>>If your Forms run fast after you've removed all statistics, then in that 
>>one, and only one, specific case, RBO is superior. However, I doubt you 
>>could apply that to a generalized case. There are some pretty clever 
>>software engineers at Oracle who are working very hard to make the CBO 
>>outperform RBO in a typical environment. At least that's what Larry (and 
>>I'm not talking about Leisure Suit Larry here) told me to say. :)

>
> Please read up on the differences between RBO and CBO, and above all
> *all* the features, like partitioning, parallel query, function based
> indexes RBO doesn't support and never will support, and stop spreading
> the fairy tale RBO is superior to CBO. It isn't. You are suffering
> from the superstition a full table scan is always bad.

Did you read what I wrote? Maybe I should repeat it: "in that *one, and only one, specific case*, RBO is superior" [emphasis mine]. I certainly never spread the RBO is great myth! And I am not suffering from the supersition that a full table scan is always bad. In fact, if you read my post, you'll see that I qualified it. Many of my queries do full table scans and perform quite nicely, thank you very much.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Perhaps you had a little too much liquid refreshment and didn't see my post clearly. Received on Fri Oct 11 2002 - 15:09:58 CDT