Re: Worst of the worst

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3ED26387.74542B6C_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> I've seen bad documentation from time to time but here's an example from
> Oracle that staggers me.
>
> SQL> GET test.sql
> 1 DECLARE
> 2 TYPE NumTab IS TABLE OF NUMBER(4) INDEX BY BINARY_INTEGER;
> 3 TYPE NameTab IS TABLE OF CHAR(15) INDEX BY BINARY_INTEGER;
> 4 pnums NumTab;
> 5 pnames NameTab;
> 6 t1 NUMBER(5);
> 7 t2 NUMBER(5);
> 8 t3 NUMBER(5);
> 9
> 10
> 11 BEGIN
> 12 FOR j IN 1..5000 LOOP -- load index-by tables
> 13 pnums(j) := j;
> 14 pnames(j) := 'Part No. ' || TO_CHAR(j);
> 15 END LOOP;
> 16 t1 := dbms_utility.get_time;
> 17 FOR i IN 1..5000 LOOP -- use FOR loop
> 18 INSERT INTO parts VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i));
> 19 END LOOP;
> 20 t2 := dbms_utility.get_time;
> 21 FORALL i IN 1..5000 -- use FORALL statement
> 22 INSERT INTO parts VALUES (pnums(i), pnames(i));
> 23 get_time(t3);
> 24 dbms_output.put_line('Execution Time (secs)');
> 25 dbms_output.put_line('---------------------');
> 26 dbms_output.put_line('FOR loop: ' || TO_CHAR(t2 - t1));
> 27 dbms_output.put_line('FORALL: ' || TO_CHAR(t3 - t2));
> 28* END;
> SQL> /
> Execution Time (secs)
> ---------------------
> FOR loop: 32
> FORALL: 3
>
> PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
>
> Source:
> http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/appdev.920/a96624/05_colls.htm#28087
>
> Take a good look at lines 16 and 20. Then look at line 23.
>
> Ok you lurkers from Oracle ... here's your chance to do a public service
> ... find whoever managed to do this
> and explain to them the concept of why documentation is posted.
> Obviously the concept was completely lost
> on several people.
>
> Thanks.

In fairness to Oracle documentation department (for doing a very boring job), get_time could be a stand alone procedure returning a call to dbms_utility.get_time, specially if they did a copy/paste job from a sql buffer after test or else they would have caught the error.

Although I doubt that's the case otherwise they would done the same in line 16 and 20. It just looks like a typo. -:)

Regards
/Rauf Sarwar Received on Mon May 26 2003 - 17:09:10 CDT