Return-Path: <root@fatcity.cts.com>
Received: from newsfeed.cts.com (newsfeed.cts.com [209.68.248.164])
 by naude.co.za (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g566gew25494
 for <oracle-l@naude.co.za>; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 02:42:40 -0400
Received: from fatcity.UUCP (uucp@localhost)
 by newsfeed.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id PAA70851;
 Wed, 5 Jun 2002 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fatcity.com (26-Feb-2001/v1.0g-b71/bab) via UUCP id 00475C5E; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:18:32 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.00475C5E.20020605151832@fatcity.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:18:32 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum
X-Sender: "Mike Killough" <mwkillough@hotmail.com>
Sender: root@fatcity.com
Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com
Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com
From: "Mike Killough" <mwkillough@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: why so much slower
Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California
X-ListServer: v1.0g, build 71; ListGuru (c) 1996-2001 Bruce A. Bergman
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Why don't you try using a leading or ordered hint to get oracle to use the 
smaller table first?


>From: Paula_Stankus@doh.state.fl.us
>Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L@fatcity.com>
>Subject: RE: why so much slower
>Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 12:18:45 -0800
>
>more info.  It seemed just when I went from two to three tables in a join
>there was a very substantial increase in elapsed time.  I did join with one
>large table and small codetable alone and performed like a champ.  Hmmmm.
>Any ideas?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:03 PM
>To: 'ORACLE-L@fatcity.com'
>
>
>
>Set sort_area_size to very large as 20Gb (obscene) amount of space
>available.
>Doing 2 large table outer joins returns results in .341 seconds - both
>partitioned on same criteria
>added one small codetable equijoin with one of the larger tables.  There is
>a foreign key to codetable and index that is unique.
>Used hash join hint
>Used nested loop hint
>
>Basically saw two large joins sort merged hash join then nested join to
>smaller table - much much smaller codetable.
>
>NO matter what it seems query is much much slower - Any ideas?
>
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Mike Killough
  INET: mwkillough@hotmail.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru@fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

