Re: rownum

hi,

by 'performance' i mean speed of query, the resources it utilises, number of hits on server / DB etc.... this query will fetch all the data from the table, then order the whole lot, then filter it and lastly display the result... waste of resources if u ask me, specially for a large DB. and if this can be devised using a sub-query that will retrieve the same recordset faster utilising less resources, wouldn't that be better?

if 'performance' meant 'doesn't return the correct results' .... well that would not be a 'performance' issue would it???

"Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message news:95r9qd$ou7$1_at_soap.pipex.net...
> "Biss Is Ignorance" <bliss_is_ignorance_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3a7fd18c.0_at_news2.tm.net.my...
> > hi,
> >
> > i think i don't understand what you want.... but from what i can figure
 out
> > ur problem seems for example
> > Select sales_amt from sales;
> > now u want to display the top 10 records
> >
> > if that's the case u could try
> > Select sales_amt from sales where rownum <= 10 order by sales_amt;
> >
> > however this is not the most effective method in terms of performance
>
> Well I guess it depends on what you mean by 'performance'. If you mean
 what
> I generally regard as 'performance' viz working faster then I don't see
 your
> argument. Why is this statement slower than an ordered inline view? If
> however by 'performance' you mean 'doesn't return the correct results'
 then
> you've hit the nail on the head.
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> Audit Commission UK
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 08 2001 - 09:33:57 CET