Re: Don't rely on 9i Skip Scan Indexing

Sorry,

I think I missed this post -
I got the hint wrong - it is

    index_ss_ascending
with the alternative being

    index_ss_descending

And it isn't in the documentation, and
as Connor pointed out, I always do a "strings -a" on the binary then search for a well-known and obvious hint (like star_transformation) in the resulting 10 MB heap of garbage.

--
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Next Seminar dates:
(see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html )

____USA__________November 7/9   (Detroit)
____USA__________November 19/21 (Dallas)
____England______November 12/14

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html





Niall Litchfield wrote in message
<3db41f9e$0$8506$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net>...


>"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:ap0amv$4cp$1$8300dec7_at_news.demon.co.uk...

>> Rule one when 'feature does not work'  is

>> to hint it in to find out what the cost of

>> making it work is going to be.

>>

>> Try  /*+ index_ss_asc */ with the query

>> and you may find that a skip scan on

>> your data set has a cost which is higher

>> than the FTS..

>

>Incidentally I did try this hint, but presumably got the syntax

wrong, so I


>went to the 9i docs at tahiti. Unfortunately this hint doesn't seem

to


>appear where I'd expect it (in the access paths hints section for

>performance tuning.), or in a search. Did you find it elsewhere or is

it


>time for a documentation bug.

>

>

>--

>Niall Litchfield

>Oracle DBA

>Audit Commission UK

>*****************************************

>Please include version and platform

>and SQL where applicable

>It makes life easier and increases the

>likelihood of a good answer

>

>******************************************

>

>