Re: PL/SQL UTL_FILE output

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1111262663.460426_at_yasure...
> Randy Harris wrote:
>
> > "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
> > news:sn0o31hvilna0q2f947mbhimjacohbpaqc_at_4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:54:15 GMT, "Randy Harris" <randy_at_SpamFree.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm just starting out with PL/SQL and would appreciate some advice.
I've
> >>>written a simple procedure to write some data out to a file. I would
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>the file to have fixed width fields, seperated by pipes. The data gets
> >
> > out
> >
> >>>to the file OK, but not fixed width. What can I do to correct that?
> >
> > Also,
> >
> >>>please point out my rookie mistakes.
> >>
> >>If the original columns are varchar2 you would need to use RPAD
> >>everywhere to properly lineup your data. As you already have a
> >>separator, I'm not sure what compelling reason there is (other than to
> >>waste disk space), to do this.
> >>
> >>Your sql statement is of course horrible. It is not formatted at all,
> >>and it uses hardcoded literals all over the place. Procedures and
> >>cursors have parameters. In your case you would probably create 1000
> >>almost identical procedures, except for the hardcoded literals, and
> >>choke your CPU to death by doing so.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> >
> >
> > Sybrand, if those same literals will "ALWAYS" be used to select the data
how
> > can I make the SQL more efficient?
>
> I have yet to see the system that over the course of its lifetime
> "ALWAYS" uses a single set of hard-coded parameters.
>
> If that is true in your system then one must presume that you only
> have a single value in the column and that begs the question of why
> put it into the database at all.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

I don't understand your statement. There are thousands of values in the column, but only three that are excluded in this query. Please explain what you mean.

This is a legacy system for which I have only recently taken ownership. The three excluded servers have been designated "large accounts" and the billing is handled differently. No provision was ever made to identify a "large account" other than by the serverid. I think this is a case where data that was properly normalized when it was originally laid out has become non normal by virtue of how it has been used.

If there is a more efficient means of retrieving the same result set from the data I would very much like to learn what that is. Received on Sat Mar 19 2005 - 14:57:43 CST