Note in-line
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
Optimising Oracle Seminar - schedule updated May 1st
<ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20040520152324.763$2i_at_newsreader.com...
> It looks like the dstmp.stock_ims table is 20 times bigger in 9i than
> it is in 8i. Or at least it looks like that the stats think it is.
>
I think that's a reporting error in explain plan.
The cardinality reported on the first table following
a filter in 8i seems to be the expected number of
rows that will pass the filter, rather than the number
of rows that will be tested.
> >
> > 8i
> > Execution Plan
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 3 2 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF 'STOCK_IMS_PK' (UNIQUE) (Cos
> > t=486 Card=51086 Bytes=715204)
> ....
> > 9i
> > Execution Plan
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 3 2 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF 'STOCK_IMS_PK' (UNIQUE) (Cos
> > t=811 Card=1108830 Bytes=18850110)
>
>
Received on Thu May 20 2004 - 17:04:29 CDT
