Re: PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET sizing of work areas and HJ cost
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
On May 29, 1:24 pm, "Jonathan Lewis" <jonat..._at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "joel garry" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote in message
> On May 29, 10:45 am, "Jonathan Lewis" <jonat..._at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
> >> Joel,
> >> From the way the OP asks the question I don't think he had the
> >> parameter hash_area_size in mind; to me it sounded like a
> >> question about "how is the equivalent of the hash_area_size
> >> derived when using automatic workarea sizing".
> >From his reply to John, that's even less clear to me. I have no
> >problem with myself or anyone misreading any of this, I think it is a
> >good thing that people are willing to fill in the blanks.
> > ...
> You're right - my interpretation was wrong.
> Apologies for muddying the waters.
No apologies necessary, between your and Mladens comments more things have become clear than muddied, even if some don't apply directly or are correct answers to questions that should have been asked but weren't. The OP question did get answered, and a lot of people learned things. That's what this group ought to be all about.
Of course, I'm only just now seeing the answers G gave to you and me, which shows I totally misinterpreted the OP (thinking he was asking about plan changing in the same session when he said "because of query plan changing in the same session" and twice more) and you didn't - you ought to write a book on how you do _that_ :-)
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/31/1n31cyberwar23437-military-companies-turning-hacke/?uniontribReceived on Sun May 31 2009 - 14:05:17 CDT