Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle and (Cached?) Views

Re: Oracle and (Cached?) Views

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:15:31 +1000
Message-ID: <iduW8.31065$Hj3.93786@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>


Hi Bob,

Don't know about this. Do you trust this associate ? Has he every given you suz advice in the past like "I think Saudi Arabia is going to do really well in the World Cup".

Remember views are really nothing more than a piece of stored code, waiting to be (re)executed. This code could be cached in the DD cache but that would only provide minimal performance gains. Note each time the view is accessed, the code has to be reexecuted and the base tables reaccessed. Again and again and again ...

The data you might be accessing might be cached if reexecuted but then again it might not and doesn't make the view any more efficient per se.

The way you make the view as efficient as possible is by ensuring the underlining code that is being executed is as efficient as possible. It's a code tuning exercise.

You're currently on 8.0 but on 8i we get to meet Materialized Views that rather than be just being stored code is the actual summarized data as a segment in it's own right. This means that the statement doesn't have to reexecute upon the underling tables but can access the pre-summarized data again and again. Potentially offering huge savings and performance improvements.

BTW, I thought Spain would win the World Cup, but I'd rather not talk about it.

Hope this helps

Richard
"Bob Kosman" <lucent_at_dtransform.com> wrote in message news:3D2A40A9.85D315A_at_dtransform.com...
> Running Oracle 8, we have a view which takes a reasonable
> amount of time. An associate mentioned to me that he thought
> it was possible to make Oracle cache a view such that
> subsequent re-running of it would be more efficient.
>
> Has anyone heard of this?
>
> TIA.
>
> Kos.
>
Received on Tue Jul 09 2002 - 00:15:31 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US