Re: query problem - please help

Daniel,

Thanks for confirming my thinking.

I love my management. They are always right. I know this because they told me so.

I will try to join on numbers and fill the columns with the characters. If that fixes things, I will post.

Evan

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:59:08 -0700, Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:

>foolishHurts wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:23:21 -0700, Daniel Morgan
>><damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>foolishHurts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>[Trimmed]
>>
>>
>>>A bit confused here.
>>>
>>>1. If it is their query why not throw it back on them?
>>>2. Since it is a vendor query can you modify it?
>>>3. Can you convert all of these CHAR columns to VARCHAR2?
>>>4. Have you tried omitting various clauses to see which one(s) are
>>>taking the time?
>>>5. What takes 10+ hours and what takes 8 seconds?
>>>6. Why the RULE hint in the insert statement?
>>>
>>>
>>1) They contract it out and the contractor is doing things that management
>>deems a higher priority. Mine is not to reason why...
>>2) Yes. We take ownership.
>>3) Yes, but I was hoping to change it as little as possible until after
>>things are better. If you think VARCHAR will fix it, I will do it. If it
>>will just save space, I can wait until a maint cycle.
>>4) I eliminated the insert and went from "forever" to 8 seconds.
>>5) insert/select goes to never never and gets killed.
>>select without insert takes 8 seconds.
>>
>>For my next trick I have created the table seperately and tried to just
>>"insert into". Same results so far at one hour.
>>
>>6) No clue why she stuck hints all over the place. In most cases, stripping
>>the hints helped performance by a factor of 10. I wish I knew more about
>>them, but for now, I strip them and analyze and compare the performance.
>>
>>"I will learn to fight fires after I put this one out". Heh.
>>
>>
>>
>1. This is nonsense. Tell management, politely, they are not getting
>their money's worth.
>2. Good
>3. This has nothing to do with saving space. It just makes string
>comparisons easier and
>there will be a performance benefit from not trimming everything in
>sight. All of those
>trims undoubtedly mean full table scans on everything so indexes are
>being ignored. This
>could be a big part of your performance issue.
>4. Makes no sense to me. Maybe it will to someone else.
>5. Makes no sense to me. Maybe it will to someone else.
>6. Strip the hint. And if the high paid consultant put it in and it is
>actually slowing things
>down by even -10% the consultant is incompetent and you can tell
>management I will
>stand behind that statement if they wish to contact me.
>
> From your posting I would suggest your management start flushing
>dollars down the
>nearest toilet. It is faster, more efficient, and has more integrity as
>at least it is an open
>acknowledgement of what they are doing.
Received on Fri Oct 24 2003 - 13:52:02 CDT