From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Jun 6 12:13:44 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j56HDi0S016766 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:13:44 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j56HDiNi016762 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:13:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id D3BE31BBDA7; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14985-08; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 5E42A1BBDAD; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:10:34 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: RE: incorrect cardinality estimates when using "having 1=1" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:08:30 +0200 Message-ID: <7F0C000A3ABA6241A10C9ABF37EEB46D0A4D0C@MSXVS01.trivadis.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: incorrect cardinality estimates when using "having 1=1" Thread-Index: AcVqsOYaZnsBHr8jR5GUd98WM401nQAAInWQ From: "Christian Antognini" To: Cc: X-archive-position: 20691 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: Christian.Antognini@trivadis.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: Christian.Antognini@trivadis.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63 Hi Vlado >The developer is using "having 1=3D1" to simplify adding additional >constraints to the having clause, if needed. > >Any idea why the difference and possible ways to solve this (without >removing the having 1=3D1)? IMHO=20 1) Simple solutions are good.=20 2) Simplistic solutions should be absolutely avoided. Therefore, tell the developer to write good code. HTH Chris -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l