Re: Slow response of forms

From: Raj <rajeev.tomar_at_gmail.com>
Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1156859358.328240.71520@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Hello Rangel,

I can see delay in one more section of trf file:

SELECT PZB.PZB_ID,PZB.VMAX,R.BST_GLEIS1,R.BST_GLEIS2,R.BST_ID,R.ROU_ID, R.EINFAHRGLEIS,PZ.LADEMASSUEBERSCHREITUNG,PZ.PZUG_ID,PZ.ZN FROM PFPL_ZUG PZ,V_ROUTE_NEU R,PFPL_ZUG_BST PZB,PZV_BSTKETTE PZVK,(SELECT PZB_ID FROM PFPL_ZUG_BST MINUS SELECT PZB_ID FROM PFPL_WARTEBEDINGUNG ) PS WHERE (PZ.PZUG_ID = PZVK.PZUG_ID ) AND (PZVK.PZVK_ID = PZB.PZVK_ID ) AND (R.ROU_ID = PZB.ROU_ID ) AND (PS.PZB_ID = PZB.PZB_ID ) AND (1 = 1 ) call count cpu elapsed disk query current

rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

Parse       20      0.00       0.00          0          0          0
       0
Execute     20      0.00       0.00          0          0          0
       0
Fetch       40      4.09      61.16       8400      13620       1700
      20

------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

total       80      4.09      61.16       8400      13620       1700
      20

Misses in library cache during parse: 0
Optimizer goal: RULE
Parsing user id: 40 (recursive depth: 1)

This does not have any count(*) ...can you please suggest some thing here.
I executed the above mentioned query manually from sql prompt and it was very fast.

Please let me know your comments.

Regards,
rajeev

marcus.rangel_at_gmail.com wrote:
> For heaven's sake man, get rid of those count(*)s !!!
>
> []´s
> Rangel
Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 08:49:18 CDT