Delete query taking long time

Hi,
I have a table containing around 0.25 million records. It has a time stamp column and its indexed. Now I am deleting records from this table older than one year.
But this is taking more than 10 minutes. Since I am doing this thorough application (has time out setting for 10 min), I am wondering why it is taking so much time.
Delete qury is similar to this
delete from table_name where time_column < (sysdate - 366)
Is that because it is trying to update index at the same time ?
Thanks in advance.

Rahul Ner wrote:
I have a table containing around 0.25 million records. It has a time stamp column and its indexed. Now I am deleting records from this table older than one year.
But this is taking more than 10 minutes. Since I am doing this thorough application (has time out setting for 10 min), I am wondering why it is taking so much time.
Delete qury is similar to this
delete from table_name where time_column < (sysdate - 366)
Is that because it is trying to update index at the same time ?Could you please post a complete DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY output including the "Predicate Information" section below the plan. Please use the \ tag before and after as I did here to format it in fixed font. Use the "Quote" button in the message editor to find out how I used it here.
Make sure that you use appropriate PAGESIZE and LINESIZE settings in SQL*Plus, suggested values are PAGESIZE 999 LINESIZE 130
How many indexes are on that table?
Are there any constraints defined on the table resp. any foreign keys pointing to that table that need to checked while deleting?
Are any triggers defined on the table?
Regards,
Randolf
Oracle related stuff blog:
http://oracle-randolf.blogspot.com/
SQLTools++ for Oracle (Open source Oracle GUI for Windows):
http://www.sqltools-plusplus.org:7676/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sqlt-pp/

Similar Messages

Query taking long time for EXTRACTING the data more than 24 hours

Hi ,
Query taking long time for EXTRACTING the data more than 24 hours please find the query and explain plan details below even indexes avilable on table's goe's to FULL TABLE SCAN. please suggest me.......
SQL> explain plan for select a.account_id,round(a.account_balance,2) account_balance,
2 nvl(ah.invoice_id,ah.adjustment_id) transaction_id,
to_char(ah.effective_start_date,'DD-MON-YYYY') transaction_date,
to_char(nvl(i.payment_due_date,
to_date('30-12-9999','dd-mm-yyyy')),'DD-MON-YYYY')
due_date, ah.current_balance-ah.previous_balance amount,
decode(ah.invoice_id,null,'A','I') transaction_type
3 4 5 6 7 8 from account a,account_history ah,invoice i_+
where a.account_id=ah.account_id
and a.account_type_id=1000002
and round(a.account_balance,2) > 0
and (ah.invoice_id is not null or ah.adjustment_id is not null)
and ah.CURRENT_BALANCE > ah.previous_balance
and ah.invoice_id=i.invoice_id(+)
AND a.account_balance > 0
order by a.account_id,ah.effective_start_date desc; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Explained.
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)|
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 544K| 30M| | 693K (20)|
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 544K| 30M| 75M| 693K (20)|
|* 2 | HASH JOIN | | 544K| 30M| | 689K (20)|
|* 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | ACCOUNT | 20080 | 294K| | 6220 (18)|
|* 4 | HASH JOIN OUTER | | 131M| 5532M| 5155M| 678K (20)|
|* 5 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| ACCOUNT_HISTORY | 131M| 3646M| | 197K (25)|
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| INVOICE | 262M| 3758M| | 306K (18)|
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - access("A"."ACCOUNT_ID"="AH"."ACCOUNT_ID")
3 - filter("A"."ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID"=1000002 AND "A"."ACCOUNT_BALANCE">0 AND
ROUND("A"."ACCOUNT_BALANCE",2)>0)
4 - access("AH"."INVOICE_ID"="I"."INVOICE_ID"(+))
5 - filter("AH"."CURRENT_BALANCE">"AH"."PREVIOUS_BALANCE" AND ("AH"."INVOICE_ID"
IS NOT NULL OR "AH"."ADJUSTMENT_ID" IS NOT NULL))
22 rows selected.
Index Details:+_
SQL> select INDEX_OWNER,INDEX_NAME,COLUMN_NAME,TABLE_NAME from dba_ind_columns where
2 table_name in ('INVOICE','ACCOUNT','ACCOUNT_HISTORY') order by 4;
INDEX_OWNER INDEX_NAME COLUMN_NAME TABLE_NAME
OPS$SVM_SRV4 P_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT CUSTOMER_NODE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_ACCOUNT_TYPE ACCOUNT_TYPE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_INVOICE INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_PREVIOUS_INVOICE PREVIOUS_INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME_ID ACCOUNT_NAME ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_ACCOUNT_NAME_ID ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_LAST_MODIFIED_ACCOUNT LAST_MODIFIED ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_INVOICE_ACCOUNT INVOICE_ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ACCOUNT SEQNR ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_INVOICE INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADINV INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA CURRENT_BALANCE ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA INVOICE_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_CIA ACCOUNT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_LMOD LAST_MODIFIED ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADINV ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_PAYMENT PAYMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT_ID ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_ACCOUNT_HISTORY_APPLIED_DT APPLIED_DATE ACCOUNT_HISTORY
OPS$SVM_SRV4 P_INVOICE INVOICE_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE CUSTOMER_INVOICE_STR INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_LAST_MODIFIED_INVOICE LAST_MODIFIED INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE_ACCOUNT ACCOUNT_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 U_INVOICE_ACCOUNT BILL_RUN_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_BILL_RUN BILL_RUN_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_INVOICE_TYPE INVOICE_TYPE_ID INVOICE
OPS$SVM_SRV4 I_INVOICE_CUSTOMER_NODE CUSTOMER_NODE_ID INVOICE
32 rows selected.
Regards,
Bathula
Oracle-DBA

I have some suggestions. But first, you realize that you have some redundant indexes, right? You have an index on account(account_name) and also account(account_name, account_id), and also account_history(invoice_id) and account_history(invoice_id, adjustment_id). No matter, I will suggest some new composite indexes.
Also, you do not need two lines for these conditions:
and round(a.account_balance, 2) > 0
AND a.account_balance > 0
You can just use: and a.account_balance >= 0.005
So the formatted query isselect a.account_id,
       round(a.account_balance, 2) account_balance,
       nvl(ah.invoice_id, ah.adjustment_id) transaction_id,
       to_char(ah.effective_start_date, 'DD-MON-YYYY') transaction_date,
       to_char(nvl(i.payment_due_date, to_date('30-12-9999', 'dd-mm-yyyy')),
               'DD-MON-YYYY') due_date,
       ah.current_balance - ah.previous_balance amount,
       decode(ah.invoice_id, null, 'A', 'I') transaction_type
from account a, account_history ah, invoice i
where a.account_id = ah.account_id
   and a.account_type_id = 1000002
   and (ah.invoice_id is not null or ah.adjustment_id is not null)
   and ah.CURRENT_BALANCE > ah.previous_balance
   and ah.invoice_id = i.invoice_id(+)
   AND a.account_balance >= .005
order by a.account_id, ah.effective_start_date desc;You will probably want to select:
1. From ACCOUNT first (your smaller table), for which you supply a literal on account_type_id. That should limit the accounts retrieved from ACCOUNT_HISTORY
2. From ACCOUNT_HISTORY. We want to limit the records as much as possible on this table because of the outer join.
3. INVOICE we want to access last because it seems to be least restricted, it is the biggest, and it has the outer join condition so it will manufacture rows to match as many rows as come back from account_history.
Try the query above after creating the following composite indexes. The order of the columns is important:create index account_composite_i on account(account_type_id, account_balance, account_id);
create index acct_history_comp_i on account_history(account_id, invoice_id, adjustment_id, current_balance, previous_balance, effective_start_date);
create index invoice_composite_i on invoice(invoice_id, payment_due_date);All the columns used in the where clause will be indexed, in a logical order suited to the needs of the query. Plus each selected column is indexed as well so that we should not need to touch the tables at all to satisfy the query.
Try the query after creating these indexes.
A final suggestion is to try larger sort and hash area sizes and a manual workarea policy.alter session set workarea_size_policy = manual;
alter session set sort_area_size = 2147483647;
alter session set hash_area_size = 2147483647;

Query taking long time to run.

The following query is taking long time to run, is there anything can be done to make it run faster by changing the sql etc.
select distinct
A.DEPTID,
A.POSITION_NBR,
A.EMPLID,
A.EMPL_RCD_NBR,
A.EFFDT,
B.NAME,
A.EMPL_STATUS,
A.JOBCODE,
A.ANNUAL_RT,
A.STD_HOURS,
A.PRIMARY_JOB,
C.POSN_STATUS,
case when A.POSITION_NBR = ' ' then 0 else C.STD_HOURS end,
case when A.POSITION_NBR = ' ' then ' ' else C.DEPTID end
from PS_JOB A,
PS_PERSONAL_DATA B,
PS_POSITION_DATA C
where A.EMPLID = B.EMPLID
and
((A.POSITION_NBR = C.POSITION_NBR
and A.EFFSEQ = (select max(D.EFFSEQ)
from PS_JOB D
where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
and D.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
and D.EFFDT = A.EFFDT)
and C.POSN_STATUS <> 'G'
and C.EFFDT = (select max(E.EFFDT)
from PS_POSITION_DATA E
where E.POSITION_NBR = A.POSITION_NBR
and E.EFFDT <= A.EFFDT)
and C.EFFSEQ = (select max(F.EFFSEQ)
from PS_POSITION_DATA F
where F.POSITION_NBR = A.POSITION_NBR
and F.EFFDT = C.EFFDT))
or
(A.POSITION_NBR = C.POSITION_NBR
and A.EFFDT = (select max(D.EFFDT)
from PS_JOB D
where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
and D.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
and D.EFFDT <= C.EFFDT)
and A.EFFSEQ = (select max(E.EFFSEQ)
from PS_JOB E
where E.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
and E.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
and E.EFFDT = A.EFFDT)
and C.POSN_STATUS <> 'G'
and C.EFFSEQ = (select max(F.EFFSEQ)
from PS_POSITION_DATA F
where F.POSITION_NBR = A.POSITION_NBR
and F.EFFDT = C.EFFDT)))
or
(A.POSITION_NBR = ' '
and A.EFFSEQ = (select max(E.EFFSEQ)
from PS_JOB D
where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
and E.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
and D.EFFDT = A.EFFDT)))

Using distributive law A and (B or C) = (A and B) or (A and C) from right to left we can have:
select distinct A.DEPTID,A.POSITION_NBR,A.EMPLID,A.EMPL_RCD_NBR,A.EFFDT,B.NAME,A.EMPL_STATUS,
                A.JOBCODE,A.ANNUAL_RT,A.STD_HOURS,A.PRIMARY_JOB,C.POSN_STATUS,
                case when A.POSITION_NBR = ' ' then 0 else C.STD_HOURS end,
                case when A.POSITION_NBR = ' ' then ' ' else C.DEPTID end
from PS_JOB A,PS_PERSONAL_DATA B,PS_POSITION_DATA C
where A.EMPLID = B.EMPLID
   and (
         A.POSITION_NBR = C.POSITION_NBR
     and A.EFFSEQ = (select max(D.EFFSEQ)
                       from PS_JOB D
                      where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
                        and D.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
                        and D.EFFDT = A.EFFDT
     and C.EFFSEQ = (select max(F.EFFSEQ)
                       from PS_POSITION_DATA E
                      where E.POSITION_NBR = A.POSITION_NBR
                        and E.EFFDT = C.EFFDT
     and C.POSN_STATUS != 'G'
     and (
           C.EFFDT = (select max(E.EFFDT)
                        from PS_POSITION_DATA E
                       where E.POSITION_NBR = A.POSITION_NBR
                         and E.EFFDT <= A.EFFDT
       or
           A.EFFDT = (select max(D.EFFDT)
                        from PS_JOB D
                       where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
                         and D.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
                         and D.EFFDT <= C.EFFDT
     or
         A.POSITION_NBR = ' '
           and A.EFFSEQ = (select max(E.EFFSEQ)
                             from PS_JOB D
                            where D.EMPLID = A.EMPLID
                              and E.EMPL_RCD_NBR = A.EMPL_RCD_NBR
                              and D.EFFDT = A.EFFDT
       )may not help much as the optimizer might have guessed it already
Regards
Etbin

CDHDR table query taking long time

Hi all,
Select query from CDHDR table is taking long time,in where condition i am giving OBJECTCLASS = 'MAT_FULL' udate = sy-datum and langu = 'EN'.
any suggestion to improve the performance.i want to select all the article which got changed on current date
regards
shibu

This will always be slow for large data volumes, since CDHDR is designed for quick access by object ID (in this case material number), not by date.
I'm afraid you would need to introduce a secondary index on OBJECTCLAS and UDATE, if that query is crucial enough to warrant the additional disk space and processing time taken by the new index.
Greetings
Thomas

Sap bi--query taking long time to exexute

Hi
When i try run the bex query ,its taking long time,please suggest
Thanks
sreedhar

Hi
When i try run the bex query ,its taking long time,please suggest
Thanks
sreedhar

Deletion is taking long time using forall

Hi,
       i am inserting and deleting the rows using forall. insert taking less time to inset the rows but while coming to
deletion it is taking more than 5 days long time to delete 18.5 million rows in a table using forall.
the main table having 70 million rows.
the code is..
   FETCH ref_typ BULK COLLECT INTO l_id_tbl LIMIT 10000;
   begin
    FORALL i in 1..l_id_tbl.COUNT
       INSERT INTO   change_test (id,
                             history,
                             transaction,
                             date)
                     VALUES (seq.nextval,
                             'CHANGE_HIS',
                             l_id_tbl(i),
                             sysdate);
       exception
           when others then
            null;
    end;
    begin
        FoRALL i in 1..l_id_tbl.COUNT
          DELETE FROM change_his
                 where id = l_id_tbl(i);
       exception
           when others then
             null;
   end;
end loop;
so please give me a good solution to delete the rows less than 5 days..

Why are you wanting to do this using BULK COLLECT and FORALL?
Why not just "insert ... select ..." and "delete ..."?
Loading records into expensive PGA memory to insert them back on the database is bound to be slower (and use more server resources) than just doing a straight insert ... select ... statement.
Explain exactly what you are trying to do.
Re: 2. How do I ask a question on the forums?

Sql query taking long time

the below query is taking very long time.
select /*+ PARALLEL(a,8) PARALLEL(b,8) */ a.personid,a.winning_id, b.questionid from
winning_id_cleanup a , rm_personquestion b
where a.personid = b.personid and (a.winning_id,b.questionid) not in
(select /*+ PARALLEL(c,8) */ c.personid,c.questionid from rm_personquestion c where c.personid=a.winning_id);
where the rm_personquestion table is having 45 million rows and winning_id_cleanup is having 1 million rows.
please tell me how to tune this query?

Please post u'r query at PL/SQL
It's not for SQL and PL/SQL

SQL Query taking longer time as seen from Trace file

Below Query Execution timings:
Any help will be benefitial as its affecting business needs.
SELECT MATERIAL_DETAIL_ID
FROM
GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS WHERE BATCH_ID = :B1 FOR UPDATE OF ACTUAL_QTY NOWAIT
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
Parse 1 0.00 0.70 0 0 0 0
Execute 2256 8100.00 24033.51 627 12298 31739 0
Fetch 2256 900.00 949.82 0 12187 0 30547
total 4513 9000.00 24984.03 627 24485 31739 30547
Thanks and Regards

Thanks Buddy.
Data Collected from Trace file:
SELECT STEP_CLOSE_DATE
FROM
GME_BATCH_STEPS WHERE BATCH_ID
IN (SELECT
DISTINCT BATCH_ID FROM
GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS START WITH BATCH_ID = :B2 CONNECT BY PRIOR PHANTOM_ID=BATCH_ID)
AND NVL(STEP_CLOSE_DATE, :B1) > :B1
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
Parse 1 0.00 0.54 0 0 0 0
Execute 2256 800.00 1120.32 0 0 0 0
Fetch 2256 9100.00 13551.45 396 77718 0 0
total 4513 9900.00 14672.31 396 77718 0 0
Misses in library cache during parse: 0
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 66 (recursive depth: 1)
Rows Row Source Operation
0 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GME_BATCH_STEPS
13160 NESTED LOOPS
6518 VIEW
6518 SORT UNIQUE
53736 CONNECT BY WITH FILTERING
30547 NESTED LOOPS
30547 INDEX RANGE SCAN GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS_U1 (object id 146151)
30547 TABLE ACCESS BY USER ROWID GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS
23189 NESTED LOOPS
53736 BUFFER SORT
53736 CONNECT BY PUMP
23189 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS
23189 INDEX RANGE SCAN GME_MATERIAL_DETAILS_U1 (object id 146151)
4386 INDEX RANGE SCAN GME_BATCH_STEPS_U1 (object id 146144)
In the Package there are lots of SQL Statements using CONNECT BY CLAUSE.
Does the use of CONNECT BY Clause degrades performance?
As you can see the Rows Section is 0 but the Query and elapsed time is taking longer
Regards

DELETE query takes long time more than 30 min

Hi
I have delete query as below.It takes 1300 sec to execute .Please let me know how to reduce the time of execution.I have indexes on both the columns jdoid,jdoversion of deletion.
DELETE FROM SIT7016.DEVICEINTERFACE WHERE JDOID = :1 AND JDOVERSION = :2
Regards
Pandu

udnapp wrote:
I have delete query as below.It takes 1300 sec to execute .Please let me know how to reduce the time of execution.I have indexes on both the columns jdoid,jdoversion of deletion.
DELETE FROM SIT7016.DEVICEINTERFACE WHERE JDOID = :1 AND JDOVERSION = :2Pretty meaningless information without an the execution plan.

Query taking long time

Hi
I have a query in which, its a 3 table join but takes a long time to execute. I had checked with plan table.. it shows one of the table is FULL ACCESS.
I have 2 clarifications.
1. Will the status checking as NULL - (it shouldn't use index)
2. Is the case statements are recommended for queries.
Query
Select .........
FROM CLIENT LEFT OUTER JOIN INTERNET_LOGIN ON INTERNET_LOGIN.NUM_CLIENT_ID=CLIENT.NUM_CLIENT_ID,
POLI_MOT.
WHERE
POLI_MOT.NUM_CLIENT_ID=CLIENT.NUM_CLIENT_ID
AND
(POLI_MOT.CHR_CANCEL_STATUS='N'
OR
POLI_MOT.CHR_CANCEL_STATUS IS NULL)
AND
CLIENT.NUM_CONTACT_TYPE_ID IN (1,3)
AND
(NVL(POLI_MOT.VCH_NEW_IC_NO,'A') =
CASE WHEN (NVL(null,NULL) IS NULL) THEN
NVL(POLI_MOT.VCH_NEW_IC_NO,'A')
ELSE
NVL(null,NULL)
END
OR
POLI_MOT.VCH_OLD_IC_NO =
CASE WHEN nvl(null,null) IS NULL THEN
POLI_MOT.VCH_OLD_IC_NO
ELSE
NVL(null,NULL)
END )
AND POLI_MOT.VCH_POLICY_NO =
CASE WHEN UPPER(nvl(NULL,null)) IS NULL THEN
POLI_MOT.VCH_POLICY_NO
ELSE
NVL(NULL,NULL)
END
AND POLI_MOT.VCH_VEHICLE_NO =
CASE WHEN UPPER(NVL('123',NULL)) IS NULL THEN
POLI_MOT.VCH_VEHICLE_NO
ELSE
NVL('123',NULL)
END

Hi,
There is nothing wrong in having a full table access. When you do the explain plan please check for which table costs you the maximun. try to work on that table.
To tune the performance of your query you can try either indexing or parallel access.
the syntax for parallel index is
/*+ PARALLEL("TBL_NM",100) */(any number)...
for index please use the index name of the table you want to index..
regards
Bharath

Query taking long time To Fectch the Results

Hi!
when I run the query,it takes too long time for fetching the resultsets.
Please find the query below for the same.
SELECT
A.BUSINESS_UNIT,
A.JOURNAL_ID,
TO_CHAR(A.JOURNAL_DATE,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
A.UNPOST_SEQ,
A.FISCAL_YEAR,
A.ACCOUNTING_PERIOD,
A.JRNL_HDR_STATUS,
C.INVOICE,
C.ACCT_ENTRY_TYPE,
C.LINE_DST_SEQ_NUM,
C.TAX_AUTHORITY_CD,
C.ACCOUNT,
C.MONETARY_AMOUNT,
D.BILL_SOURCE_ID,
D.IDENTIFIER,
D.VAT_AMT_BSE,
D.VAT_TRANS_AMT_BSE,
D.VAT_TXN_TYPE_CD,
D.TAX_CD_VAT,
D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT,
D.VAT_APPLICABILITY,
E.BILL_TO_CUST_ID,
E.BILL_STATUS,
E.BILL_CYCLE_ID,
TO_CHAR(E.INVOICE_DT,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
TO_CHAR(E.ACCOUNTING_DT,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
TO_CHAR(E.DT_INVOICED,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
E.ENTRY_TYPE,
E.ENTRY_REASON,
E.AR_LVL,
E.AR_DST_OPT,
E.AR_ENTRY_CREATED,
E.GEN_AR_ITEM_FLG,
E.GL_LVL, E.GL_ENTRY_CREATED,
(Case when c.account in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000','30490000',
'30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000','35160000',
'39100050','90100000')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 0 then 'Ej_Momskonto_med_moms'
When c.account not in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000',
'30490000','30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000',
'35160000','39100050','90100000')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 25 then 'Momskonto_utan_moms' end)
FROM
sysadm.PS_JRNL_HEADER A,
sysadm.PS_JRNL_LN B,
sysadm.PS_BI_ACCT_ENTRY C,
sysadm.PS_BI_LINE D,
sysadm.PS_BI_HDR E
WHERE A.BUSINESS_UNIT = '&BU'
AND A.JOURNAL_DATE BETWEEN TO_DATE('&From_date','YYYY-MM-DD')
AND TO_DATE('&To_date','YYYY-MM-DD')
AND A.SOURCE      = 'BI'
AND A.BUSINESS_UNIT = B.BUSINESS_UNIT
AND A.JOURNAL_ID      = B.JOURNAL_ID
AND A.JOURNAL_DATE = B.JOURNAL_DATE
AND A.UNPOST_SEQ      = B.UNPOST_SEQ
AND B.BUSINESS_UNIT = C.BUSINESS_UNIT
AND B.JOURNAL_ID = C.JOURNAL_ID
AND B.JOURNAL_DATE = C.JOURNAL_DATE
AND B.JOURNAL_LINE = C.JOURNAL_LINE
AND C.ACCT_ENTRY_TYPE = 'RR'
AND C.BUSINESS_UNIT = '&BU'
AND C.BUSINESS_UNIT = D.BUSINESS_UNIT
AND C.INVOICE = D.INVOICE
AND C.LINE_SEQ_NUM = D.LINE_SEQ_NUM
AND D.BUSINESS_UNIT = '&BU'
AND D.BUSINESS_UNIT = E.BUSINESS_UNIT
AND D.INVOICE = E.INVOICE
AND E.BUSINESS_UNIT = '&BU'
AND
((c.account in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000','30490000',
'30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000','35160000',
'39100050','90100000')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 0)
OR
(c.account not in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000','30490000',
'30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000','35160000',
'39100050','z')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 25)
GROUP BY
A.BUSINESS_UNIT,
A.JOURNAL_ID,
TO_CHAR(A.JOURNAL_DATE,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
A.UNPOST_SEQ, A.FISCAL_YEAR,
A.ACCOUNTING_PERIOD,
A.JRNL_HDR_STATUS,
C.INVOICE,
C.ACCT_ENTRY_TYPE,
C.LINE_DST_SEQ_NUM,
C.TAX_AUTHORITY_CD,
C.ACCOUNT,
D.BILL_SOURCE_ID,
D.IDENTIFIER,
D.VAT_TXN_TYPE_CD,
D.TAX_CD_VAT,
D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT,
D.VAT_APPLICABILITY,
E.BILL_TO_CUST_ID,
E.BILL_STATUS,
E.BILL_CYCLE_ID,
TO_CHAR(E.INVOICE_DT,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
TO_CHAR(E.ACCOUNTING_DT,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
TO_CHAR(E.DT_INVOICED,'YYYY-MM-DD'),
E.ENTRY_TYPE, E.ENTRY_REASON,
E.AR_LVL, E.AR_DST_OPT,
E.AR_ENTRY_CREATED,
E.GEN_AR_ITEM_FLG,
E.GL_LVL,
E.GL_ENTRY_CREATED,
C.MONETARY_AMOUNT,
D.VAT_AMT_BSE,
D.VAT_TRANS_AMT_BSE
having
(Case when c.account in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000',
'30490000','30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000',
'35160000','39100050','90100000')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 0 then 'Ej_Momskonto_med_moms'
When c.account not in ('30120000','30180050','30190000','30290000','30490000',
'30690000','30900040','30990000','35100000','35120000','35150000','35160000',
'39100050','90100000')
and D.TAX_CD_VAT_PCT <> 25 then 'Momskonto_utan_moms' end) is not null
So Could you provide the solution to fix this issue?
Thanks
senthil

[url http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=501834&tstart=0]When your query takes too long ...
Regards,
Rob.

LINQ query taking long time

Following query i write it returns me 1400 records. and below line taking much time.
1.5 second taken by
count = quer != null ? quer.Count() : 0;
and 2 sec taken by
candidateList = quer.Skip((pageIndex - 1) * pageSize).Take(pageSize).ToList();
Please suggest.

Hi Jon,
In SharePoint, I suggest you use CAML Query. If you use Linq, the performance won't be gurantteed.
For the first query, you can use SPQury.Count to achieve it, for the second query, you can build a proper CAML to filter the data.
Here are some detailed articles for your reference:
SPList.GetItems method (SPQuery)
SPQuery.Query Property
Zhengyu Guo
TechNet Community Support

QUERY taking longer time than usual

Hello Gurus,
The query below used to take 5-10 minutes depending on the resource availability, but this time it is taking 4-5 hrs to complete this transaction.
INSERT /*+ APPEND */ INTO TAG_STAGING
SELECT /*+ INDEX(A,ALL_tags_INDX1) */
DISTINCT TRIM (serial) serial_num,
TRIM (COMPANY_numBER) COMPANY_NUM,
TRIM (PERSON_id) PERSON_id
FROM ALL_tags@DWDB_link a
WHERE serviceS IN (SELECT /*+ INDEX(B,service_CODES_INDX2) */
services
FROM service_CODES b
WHERE srvc_cd = 'R')
AND (ORDERDATE_date BETWEEN TO_DATE ('01-JAN-2007','dd-mon-yyyy')
AND TO_DATE ('31-DEC-2007','dd-mon-yyyy'))
AND ( (TRIM (status_1) IS NULL)
OR (TRIM (status_1) = 'R')
AND (TRIM (status_2) = 'R' OR TRIM (status_2) IS NULL)
TAG_STAGING table is empty with primary key on the three given columns
ALL_tags@DWDB_link table has about 100M rows
Ideally the query should fetch about 4M rows.
Could any one please give me an idea as to how to proceed to quicken the process.
Thanks in advance
Thanks,
TT

First I'd check the explain plan to make sure that it makes sense. Perhaps an index was dropped or perhaps the stats are wrong for some reason.
If the explain plan looks good then I'd trace it and see where the time is being spent.

SELECT query taking long time

Hi All,
I am trying to run one SELECT statement which uses 6 tables. That query generally take 25-30 minutes to generate output.
Today it is running from more than 2 hours. I have checked there are no locks on those tables and no other process is using them.
What else I should check in order to figure out why my SELECT statement is taking time?
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!

Please let me know if you still want me to provide all the information mentioned in the link.Yes, please.
Before you can even start optimizing, it should be clear what parts of the query are running slow.
The links contains the steps to take regarding how to identify the things that make the query run slow.
Ideally you post a trace/tkprof report with wait events, it'll show on what time is being spent, give an execution plan and a database version all in once...
Today it is running from more than 2 hours. I have checked there are no locks on those tables and no other process is using them.Well, something must have changed.
And you must indentify what exactly has changed, but it's a broad range you have to check:
- it could be outdated table statistics
- it could be data growth or skewness that makes Optimizer choose a wrong plan all of a sudden
- it could be a table that got modified with some bad index
- it could be ...
So, by posting the information in the link, you'll leave less room for guesses from us, so you'll get an explanation that makes sense faster or, while investigating by following the steps in the link, you'll get the explanation yourself.

Delete Statement taking long time

Can anyone help for the below query:
DELETE FROM apm_prod_mst_interface
WHERE plant_code= 'CAPL'
AND trunc(start_date) = '20-FEB-2008'
AND shift = p_mb_details.shift
AND formula_class = p_mb_details.formula_class
AND item_no = p_batch_details.item_no
AND line_no = p_mb_details.line_no
AND nvl(formula_no,'1') = NVL('ASCC1','1')
AND nvl(formula_vers,-1) = NVL(13,-1)
AND uom = 'KG'
AND NVL(routing_no,'-1') = NVL('SFSDF-2','-1')
AND NVL(routing_vers,0) = NVL(14,0)
AND NVL(plan_start_date,trunc(sysdate)) = NVL('20-FEB-2008',trunc(sysdate))
AND NVL(expct_cmplt_date,trunc(sysdate)) = NVL('20-FEB-2008',trunc(sysdate))
AND user_name = 'DUMMY'
AND schedule = 2
AND plan_qty > 0;
Regards

Check the High Water Mark of the table!
If the table has lots of inserts & deletes all the time, the HWM may be 1000 miles away from the actual data (But Orcale will need to read all the blocks to determine if they are empty).
Has the table been analyzed recently?
Explain plan for the equivalent SELECT?
IF you have index'es on all the fields, then an update will take time, since it has to update 15-20 indexes.
I would:
1) Try to time just the SELECT (explain plan & autotrace)
2) Gather stats
3) SELECT again - and see if difference?
4) If not -> ALTER TABLE <name> MOVE (to fix HWM)
5) SELECT again
best regards
Mette

Delete query taking long time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for