adon_at_cool.iskon.local (Adon Keber) wrote in message news:<slrnbmdp2m.1pc.adon_at_cool.iskon.local>...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:08:25 +0300, Tanel Poder wrote:
> >Btw, is your query running parallel or serial?
>
> My first thought, but query is running in serial.
>
> And here are execution plans:
>
> Slower:
>
> Operation Object Name Rows Bytes Cost
>
> SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer Mode=ALL_ROWS 22 446
> SORT ORDER BY 22 1 K 446
> FILTER
> NESTED LOOPS 22 1 K 431
> TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID USERS 1 14 1
> INDEX UNIQUE SCAN USR_UK 1 1
> TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID PASTCONN 1 M 91 M 430
> INDEX RANGE SCAN PCONN_USR_FK_I 1 M
> INDEX RANGE SCAN PCD_I 2 12 3
>
>
> Faster:
>
> Operation Object Name Rows Bytes Cost
>
> SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer Mode=ALL_ROWS 22 31845
> FILTER
> NESTED LOOPS 22 1 K 31845
> TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID USERS 1 14 1
> INDEX UNIQUE SCAN USR_UK 1 1
> TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID PASTCONN 1 M 91 M 31844
> INDEX RANGE SCAN PCONN_CEND_I 1 M 3355
> INDEX RANGE SCAN PCD_I 2 12 3
>
>
>
> As I said...only one difference...
>
> a.
Have you tried this query without order by? Just to make sure it's really
order by which takes that much time?
Received on Tue Sep 16 2003 - 11:36:57 CDT
