Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Changed execution plans..
Robert,
Was imp run with default options?
The way it computes stats after table imports, may not be appropriate.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:29 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Thanks Cary... I've actually considered most of those already. This isn't my database, I'm coming in to help someone else. In this case, the database schema was accidentally dropped, and recovered from an export. I'm wondering if the import might have created blocks that are packed more densely and that this might be the cause of the problem. I'm told the parameters are the same, that the physical structure is the same, they are not using stored outlines and the SQL has not been changed. No patches have been applied, so it's apples for apples with the exception of the statistics and, possibly, the data density. They have some old stored statistics that they generated pre-schema drop that they are supposed to send me, so I'm going to look at that tomorrow and run a 10053 trace on one of the changed queries and see what I can find. I was just wondering if I could be missing something obvious..... Seems like that is just the way, it's the obvious things that get missed... :-)
Thanks so much for your comments!
RF
-----Original Message-----
Millsap
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:54 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Robert,
Seven reasons I can think of include changes to:
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- 2003 Hotsos Symposium, Feb 9-12 Dallas
-----Original Message-----
Freeman
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:24 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hey Ya'all... (still got my southern roots even up here in Chicago!)
Anyone want to throw in some possible reasons why an execution plan
might
change for a given table query....This is on Oracle9iR2 on SUN. I've
looked
at the obvious causes:
None of these seem to apply. I've got a database that a few weeks ago
were
doing indexed
lookups using a partitioned index on a partitioned table. Now, it seems
that
these queries
are doing full table scans on this partitioned table. I'm still
gathering up
the details for the items above (e.g how much have the objects changed)
and
I'll probably run a 10053 trace on one of the bad queries to see what
the
optimizer is doing on Monday, but I'd like to just poll for some
additional
ideas. I *AM* getting partition elimination (thank goodness) but I've
got
two FTS on one partition of this table that are just killing it. They
want
to quantify the reason why this access has changed so I'm trying to
think of
what kinds of stuff I can look at to try to do this.
I will add that this table was just rebuilt recently (through
imp/exp)...
can the change in row to block density make the difference.... hmmmm....
Any ideas??
RF
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Robert Freeman INET: robertgfreeman_at_yahoo.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Deshpande, Kirti INET: kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.com Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_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).Received on Mon Jan 20 2003 - 07:39:19 CST
![]() |
![]() |