cleveridea wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:37 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>> csn..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>>> Urm, Morgan, you didn't really think that was a question on syntax,
>>> did you?
>>> To the OP, don't look at cost. It is not for consumption by the end-
>>> user.
>>> You have a bind-variable peeking problem.
>>> Construct say 3 different cursors each with a different stabilised
>>> plan based on selectivity of the inputs, and call the appropriate
>>> cursor based on the input variable. Or reject it altogether.
>>> Comes down to: know your data.
>> Given the syntax error ... you are assuming that what you are seeing
>> is the real statement. I'm not willing to make that assumption.
>>
>> The OP has now stated: "I anonymised & simplified the query data
>> incorrectly" so, given that it has been simplified, the real issue
>> may bear no relationship to what has been posted.
>>
>> To the OP. Anonymizing, ok, rename the tables and columns if you wish.
>> But simplifying makes the exercise meaningless.
>> --
>> Daniel A. Morgan
>> University of Washington
>> damor..._at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
>> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
>
> Daniel why don't you just ignore such posts that are so problematic to
> you? Why do you continually waste everyone's time posting how bad
> other people's posts are?
So that you will repost them yet again. Thanks for asking. <g>
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Tue Oct 09 2007 - 10:47:11 CDT
