Re: dbms_stats
From: jaromir nemec <jaromir_at_db-nemec.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:37:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50031.213.162.65.111.1244029037.bloek_at_pwebmail5.utanet.at>
Hi,
> so from my test , i show analyze is better than DBMS_STATS..... Any
> other ideas plz
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:37:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <50031.213.162.65.111.1244029037.bloek_at_pwebmail5.utanet.at>
Hi,
>
> so from my test , i show analyze is better than DBMS_STATS..... Any
> other ideas plz
This shows first of all that the second test runs better then the first one. This could be a result of caching.
I'd suggest:
- run the selects with autotrace on to see if you have different execution plans
- repeat the runs to see the ratio of logical and physical I/O (also visible in autotrace output)
HTH Jaromir
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Jun 03 2009 - 06:37:17 CDT