Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: cost
Does not appears to make a difference in this case:
SQL> alter session set "_new_initial_join_orders"=false;
Session altered.
SQL> explain plan set statement_id='00002' for
2 select e.ename, d.dname
3 from emp e inner join dept d
4 using (deptno)
5 where d.dname = 'RESEARCH'
6 /
Explained.
SQL> @xplain 00002
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 5 | 110 | 6 (34)| |* 1 | HASH JOIN | | 5 | 110 | 6 (34)| |* 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | DEPT | 1 | 13 | 3 (34)| | 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | EMP | 14 | 126 | 3 (34)| -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - access("E"."DEPTNO"="D"."DEPTNO") 2 - filter("D"."DNAME"='RESEARCH')
At 02:16 AM 4/6/2004, you wrote:
> > My guess would be that this is a deliberate
> > heuristic introduced some time around 9
> > to avoid nested loop full tablescans when
> > the numbers are small.
>
>I wonder could this behaviour be changed with _new_initial_join_orders
>parameter? (Don't have a chance to test it myself right now)
>
>Tanel.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
>put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
>--
>Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
>FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Breitling
Oracle7, 8, 8i, 9i OCP DBA
Centrex Consulting Corporation
http://www.centrexcc.com
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Tue Apr 06 2004 - 05:13:52 CDT
![]() |
![]() |