Re: sql tuning

I haven't seen the clustering_factor behaving strangely (or, more strangely than usual) on bitmap indexes.

It's been a long time since I tried to figure out what the clustering_factor meant on
a bitmap index - but currently it looks as if it is the same as distinct_keys allowing for totally deleted but not yet cleared keys. Perhaps this in some way explains why
it could get to a strange number.

--
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Next Seminar dates:
(see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html )

____USA__________November 7/9   (Detroit)
____USA__________November 19/21 (Dallas)
____England______November 12/14

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html





Mike Ault wrote in message
<37fab3ab.0209290903.59766b8c_at_posting.google.com>...


>Jonathan,

>

>I have noted this effect as well. The clustering factors grow

>enormous, in several cases, and don't aks me how it does it, it has

>been greater than row count in the source table. A rebuild usually

>fixes the problem but it is still a problem in a 24X7 environment.

>

>Mike Ault