RE: 9i on RHAS3

Wasn't there a whitepaper somewhere that said that it may be more efficient to use an index with NL, even if the entire table fits in a single block? A quick scan of my saved ORACLE-L messages didn't reveal anything.

Rich

Rich Jesse                           System/Database Administrator
rjesse_at_qtiworld.com                  Quad/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mladen Gogala [mailto:mladen_at_wangtrading.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: 9i on RHAS3
>
>
> Rich, I don't have AS 3.0, I'm using regular RH 9 and RH 8
> based worsktations, with gcc 3.2
> (gcc-gnat-3.2.2-5,gcc-3.2.2-5) and curiously enough, the
> installation worked right out of
> the box, with a quirk with linking context ("undefined
> symbol"), but I was able to ignore the
> error and proceed. Oracle works well, no complaints so far.
> There is a thing that confuses me,
> but it's generic. I tried on a Solaris8 box and the result
> was the same (9.2.0.4). Here is
> what confuses me. Here are two execution plans, for the same
> query (autotrace on explain, timing on).
> More expensive plan takes less time. Shouldn't it be the
> other way round?
> Elapsed: 00:00:00.00
>
> Execution Plan
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=7 Card=14 Bytes=77
> 0)
>
> 1 0 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=7 Card=14 Bytes=770)
> 2 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'CP_ACTIONS' (Cost=2 Ca
> rd=14 Bytes=588)
>
> 3 2 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'CP_ACTIONS_EFF_I' (NON-UNIQUE)
> (Cost=2 Card=14)
>
> 4 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'CHG_TKR' (Cost=2 Card=
> 1 Bytes=13)
>
> 5 4 INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'SYS_C004800' (UNIQUE) (Cost=1
> Card=1)
>
>
> Elapsed: 00:00:00.01
>
> Execution Plan
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=6 Card=14 Bytes=77
> 0)
>
> 1 0 HASH JOIN (Cost=6 Card=14 Bytes=770)
> 2 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'CP_ACTIONS' (Cost=2 Ca
> rd=14 Bytes=588)
>
> 3 2 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'CP_ACTIONS_EFF_I' (NON-UNIQUE)
> (Cost=2 Card=14)
>
> 4 1 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'CHG_TKR' (Cost=4 Card=1602 Bytes
> =20826)
>
>
>
>
> > Has anyone tried 9i on RHAS3 yet? Metalink 252217.1 and
> the venerable
> > Werner Puschitz's site http://www.puschitz.com have many
> icky hacks that
> > seem to have to be done, including temporarily dropping
> gcc323 to the highly
> > unstable and buggy v2.96 (even GNU says not to use it! --
> it's not even
> > listed as a release on their website).
> >
> > I'm guessing that Mr. Puschitz isn't on this list? Looks
> like he knows the
> > Oracle install on RedHat quite well.
> >
> > How's about it, Mladen? I'm not willing to scrap my Gentoo
> box to test it.
> > :)
> >
> >
> > Rich

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Jesse, Rich
  INET: Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.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).