Execution takes time for the report in Application

Question

I have developed a report for payroll runresult.Its execution time is 3 minutes,but when i run in application it takes half an hour
The query i use is...
SELECT round((sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Basic Salary',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'House Rent Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Transport Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Petrol Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Vehicle Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Additional HRA',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Other Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Carried Balance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Mobile Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Fixed Over Time',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Rent Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Vehicle Allowance Deducted',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'HRA Deducted',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Rent Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Insurance Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Medical Insurance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Family Passage Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Salik Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Family Insurance Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Fixed Incentive',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) +
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Company Accomodation Provided',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Mess Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Normal Overtime',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Special Overtime',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Telephone Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Other Allowance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Other Earnings',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Other Deductions',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0)) -
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Salary Advance Recovery',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Air Ticket Refund',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Vehicle Fines and Charges',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Abroad Emergency Leave',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Abscond Leave',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Air Fare Paid',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Recovery Carried Balance',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Hajj Leave',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Local Leave',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Sick Leave Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Sick Leave Without certificate',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))-
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Round Off Deduction',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))+
sum(nvl(DECODE(PET.element_name,'Round Off Earnings',ROUND(prrv.result_value,3),0),0))),0)Net_Salary,papf.national_identifier groupcode,papf.FULL_NAME,paav.effective_date,
haout.name costcentre,pg.name grade, pj.name designation ,paaf.ASSIGNMENT_NUMBER employee_number,decode(pop.org_payment_method_name,'RI_CASH','C','B')Payment
FROM pay_run_results_v prrv,pay_run_results prr,pay_assignment_actions paa,per_all_assignments_f paaf,per_all_people_f papf,hr_all_organization_units_tl haout,
per_grades pg, per_jobs pj,pay_assignment_actions_v paav,pay_personal_payment_methods_f ppp,pay_all_payrolls_f pap,pay_payroll_actions ppa,
pay_org_payment_methods_f_tl pop,pay_element_types_f PET
WHERE --prrv.assignment_action_id = 49449 and
ppp.assignment_id(+) = paa.assignment_id
AND pop.org_payment_method_id(+) = ppp.org_payment_method_id AND
paa.ASSIGNMENT_ACTION_ID=prrv.ASSIGNMENT_ACTION_ID and paaf.ASSIGNMENT_ID=paa.ASSIGNMENT_ID
and haout.organization_id=paaf.ORGANIZATION_ID
and papf.EMPLOYEE_NUMBER=paaf.ASSIGNMENT_NUMBER
AND prrv.run_result_id = prr.run_result_id
AND ppa.effective_date BETWEEN pet.effective_start_date
AND pet.effective_end_date
AND prr.element_type_id = pet.element_type_id
and prrv.CLASSIFICATION_NAME not like 'Info%'
-- and prrv.element_name not like 'Gross Salary%'
-- and prrv.element_name not like 'Annual%'
and pj.job_id(+)=paaf.job_id
and haout.name=nvl(:P_Dept,haout.name)
and ppa.PAYROLL_ACTION_ID=paa.PAYROLL_ACTION_ID
and pap.PAYROLL_ID=ppa.PAYROLL_ID
and paav.ASSIGNMENT_ID=paaf.ASSIGNMENT_ID
and paav.ASSIGNMENT_ACTION_ID=paa.ASSIGNMENT_ACTION_ID
and pap.PAYROLL_NAME=NVL(:P_PAYROLL_NAME,pap.PAYROLL_NAME)
--and papf.national_identifier = 03917
and paav.effective_date >= TO_DATE ('01-' || :p_start_date, 'DD-MON-YYYY')
AND paav.effective_date <= LAST_DAY (TO_DATE ('01-' || :p_start_date, 'DD-MON-YYYY'))
-- and paav.DATE_EARNED=to_char(:p_date,'DD-MON-YYYY')
and pg.grade_id(+)=paaf.grade_id group by papf.national_identifier,papf.FULL_NAME,paav.effective_date,
haout.name ,pg.name , pj.name,paaf.ASSIGNMENT_NUMBER,pop.org_payment_method_name,papf.employee_number
Cant analyse where it takes time...
Regards,
Mera

Answer 1

I don't think that the "SUM" structure in the SELECT makes a difference in performance (And DO NOT use PL/SQL for this!) And as long as you SUM most PET.element_name values you do not need to filter by them.
But, of course, the solution of "Sven W." would make the code MUCH nicer (took me a while to get it) and the "format" of the join conditions would take anyone ages to maintain that code!
But your problem is that the execution differs massively right?
Do you do the same thing? E.g. bind variables in the interactive part? Do the variables have the same value?
Do you filter on the other variables like "P_DEPT" etc. ?
"and haout.name=nvl(:P_Dept,haout.name)"
The good thing is that you have an execution which makes you happy so you need to compare the SQL and the execution for both. Somewhere must be a difference. (Is the result the same by the way (just in case your parameters differ)?)
If the results and parameters are the same, then do you not work with parameters in the "interactive" test and ORACLE is choosing a different execution plan as it knows more about your question. If that's the case, try to hint the query so that it's using the desired execution plan when you work with parameters.
And how did you get that "execution plan" it's missing so much data and it's not formated. (put around it and check in "Preview" if it looks as desired)
-- andy