Improve performance of an inline view query

All,
I have a unique situation where I have to limit the number of rows based on group. so I created an Inline view and applied a limit on it.
ex:
SELECT col_A, col_B FROM ( SELECT col_a, count(*) FROM tab_a WHERE col_a = 'XXX' GROUP BY col_a) ROWNUM <-10.
but this design was rejected, because it seems to have a great impact on performance due to inline view.
Also I cant set a rowlimit directly on the query because GROUP BY clause is used in the select.
When the rownum is directly applied in the WHERE, first it limits the rows and then it makes a GROUP, so when user asks to retrieve 10 records, it may show less than 10 rows because of the grouping.
please help to find a alternative solution which helps to get the expected result set and same time without loosing performance.

Hi,
The sql you gave us is not valid. There is no "col_b" in your inline view, there is no "where" before "rownum<10", and the inline view returns only one row.
Try to produce a reproducible scenario with scott.emp and scott.dept generated by $ORACLE_HOME/rdbms/admin/utlsampl.sql
Regards
Laurent

Similar Messages

Improve Performance on Inline view Query

All,
I have a unique situation where I have to limit the number of rows based on group. so I created an Inline view and applied a limit on it.
ex:
SELECT col_A, col_B FROM ( SELECT col_a, count(*) FROM tab_a WHERE col_a = 'XXX' GROUP BY col_a) ROWNUM <-10.
but this design was rejected, because it seems to have a great impact on performance due to inline view.
Also I cant set a rowlimit directly on the query because GROUP BY clause is used in the select.
When the rownum is directly applied in the WHERE, first it limits the rows and then it makes a GROUP, so when user asks to retrieve 10 records, it may show less than 10 rows because of the grouping.
please help to find a alternative solution which helps to get the expected result set and same time without loosing performance

but this design was rejected, because it seems to have a great impact on performance due to inline view.What proof was offered that this query performed badly. There is nothing inherently non-performant about in-line views. I would demand to see some evidence that this query uses an unreasonable amount of system resource.
However, you could try this:
SELECT t.col1, avg(t.col2)
FROM   t1 t
WHERE t.col1 IN ( SELECT DISTINCT x.col1
                   FROM   t1 x
                   WHERE col3 = 'XXX'
                   AND    rownum <=10 )
GROUP BY t.col1
/I assume your example is not derived from your real code (otherwise the WHERE clause would restrict the inline query to one returned row - problem solved!)
Cheers, APC

Help with inline view query

Hi
I have written a query that is supposed to return the following result.
LOCATION                  YOUNGEST                    ELDEST
york                       Name                        Name
Luton                      Name                        NameI am having trouble with the INNER JOIN of the outer query. I cannot seem to match up both the YOUNGEST and ELDEST COLUMNS, only one of them. Does anyone know how I match it up to produce the appropriate result
SELECT
     res.ldes,
     a.first_name||' '||a.last_name YOUNGEST,
     a.first_name||' '||a.last_name ELDEST
FROM
SELECT
        l.description ldes,
        MAX(a.birth_date) maxbd,
        MIN(a.birth_date) minbd
FROM
        locations l
INNER JOIN
        agents a
ON
        l.location_id=a.location_id
GROUP BY
        l.description
) res
INNER JOIN
        agents a
ON
        a.birth_date = res.maxbd --PROBLEM IS HERE need to match up a.birth_date with res.minbd also but cannot get it
ORDER BY
        res.ldesThanks for any response

metzquar gave your answer.
try
with locations as(select 10 location_id,'ABC' description from dual union all
select 20,'XYZ' from dual union all
select 30,'RPF' from dual),
agents as(select 10 location_id,'IM' first_name,'ELDEST' last_name,to_date('08/08/1988','mm/dd/yyyy') birth_date from dual union all
select 20,'IM','ELDEST', to_date('08/08/1988','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 30,'IM','ELDEST', to_date('08/08/1988','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 10,'IM','MIDAGE', to_date('07/07/1977','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 20,'IM','MIDAGE', to_date('07/07/1977','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 30,'IM','MIDAGE', to_date('07/07/1977','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 10,'IM','YOUNGEST', to_date('06/06/1966','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 20,'IM','YOUNGEST', to_date('06/06/1966','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual union all
select 30,'IM','YOUNGEST', to_date('06/06/1966','mm/dd/yyyy') from dual)
SELECT   l.description ldes,
         MIN(a.first_name || ' ' || a.last_name)KEEP (DENSE_RANK FIRST ORDER BY a.birth_date) AS youngest,
         MIN(a.first_name || ' ' || a.last_name)KEEP (DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY a.birth_date) AS eldest
    FROM locations l INNER JOIN agents a ON l.location_id = a.location_id
GROUP BY l.description
ORDER BY 1;
O/P:-
LDES     YOUNGEST      ELDEST
ABC     IM YOUNGEST     IM ELDEST
RPF     IM YOUNGEST     IM ELDEST
XYZ     IM YOUNGEST     IM ELDEST

What is the best way to replace the Inline Views for better performance ?

Hi,
I am using Oracle 9i ,
What is the best way to replace the Inline Views for better performance. I see there are lot of performance lacking with Inline views in my queries.
Please suggest.
Raj

WITH plus /*+ MATERIALIZE */ hint can do good to you.
see below the test case.
SQL> create table hx_my_tbl as select level id, 'karthick' name from dual connect by level <= 5
2 /
Table created.
SQL> insert into hx_my_tbl select level id, 'vimal' name from dual connect by level <= 5
2 /
5 rows created.
SQL> create index hx_my_tbl_idx on hx_my_tbl(id)
2 /
Index created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'hx_my_tbl',cascade=>true)
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Now this a normal inline view
SQL> select a.id, b.id, a.name, b.name
2 from (select id, name from hx_my_tbl where id = 1) a,
3 (select id, name from hx_my_tbl where id = 1) b
4 where a.id = b.id
5 and a.name <> b.name
6 /
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=7 Card=2 Bytes=48)
1 0 HASH JOIN (Cost=7 Card=2 Bytes=48)
2 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'HX_MY_TBL' (TABLE) (Cost=3 Card=2 Bytes=24)
3 2 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'HX_MY_TBL_IDX' (INDEX) (Cost=1 Card=2)
4 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'HX_MY_TBL' (TABLE) (Cost=3 Card=2 Bytes=24)
5 4 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'HX_MY_TBL_IDX' (INDEX) (Cost=1 Card=2)
Now i use the with with the materialize hint
SQL> with my_view as (select /*+ MATERIALIZE */ id, name from hx_my_tbl where id = 1)
2 select a.id, b.id, a.name, b.name
3 from my_view a,
4 my_view b
5 where a.id = b.id
6 and a.name <> b.name
7 /
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=8 Card=1 Bytes=46)
1 0 TEMP TABLE TRANSFORMATION
2 1 LOAD AS SELECT
3 2 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'HX_MY_TBL' (TABLE) (Cost=3 Card=2 Bytes=24)
4 3 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'HX_MY_TBL_IDX' (INDEX) (Cost=1 Card=2)
5 1 HASH JOIN (Cost=5 Card=1 Bytes=46)
6 5 VIEW (Cost=2 Card=2 Bytes=46)
7 6 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SYS_TEMP_0FD9D6967_3C610F9' (TABLE (TEMP)) (Cost=2 Card=2 Bytes=24)
8 5 VIEW (Cost=2 Card=2 Bytes=46)
9 8 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SYS_TEMP_0FD9D6967_3C610F9' (TABLE (TEMP)) (Cost=2 Card=2 Bytes=24)
here you can see the table is accessed only once then only the result set generated by the WITH is accessed.
Thanks,
Karthick.

HOW TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE ON SUM FUNCTION IN INLINE SQL QUERY

SELECT NVL(SUM(B1.T_AMOUNT),0) PAYMENT,B1.ACCOUNT_NUM,B1.BILL_SEQ
FROM
SELECT P.T_AMOUNT,P.ACCOUNT_NUM,P.BILL_SEQ
FROM PAYMENT_DATA_VIEW P
WHERE TRUNC(P.ACC_PAYMENT_DATE) < '01-JAN-2013'
AND P.CUSTOMER_NAME ='XYZ'
AND P.CLASS_ID IN (-1,1,2,94)
) B1
GROUP BY B1.ACCOUNT_NUM,B1.BILL_SEQ
Above is the query.If we run inner query it takes few second to execute but while we are summing up the same amount and bill_Seq using inline view, it takes time to execute it.
Note: Count of rows selected from inner query will be around >10 Lac
How to improve the performance for this query?
Pls suggest
Thanks in advance

989209 wrote:
SELECT NVL(SUM(B1.T_AMOUNT),0) PAYMENT,B1.ACCOUNT_NUM,B1.BILL_SEQ
FROM
SELECT P.T_AMOUNT,P.ACCOUNT_NUM,P.BILL_SEQ
FROM PAYMENT_DATA_VIEW P
WHERE TRUNC(P.ACC_PAYMENT_DATE) < '01-JAN-2013'
AND P.CUSTOMER_NAME ='XYZ'
AND P.CLASS_ID IN (-1,1,2,94)
) B1
GROUP BY B1.ACCOUNT_NUM,B1.BILL_SEQ
Above is the query.If we run inner query it takes few second to execute but while we are summing up the same amount and bill_Seq using inline view, it takes time to execute it.
Note: Count of rows selected from inner query will be around >10 Lac
How to improve the performance for this query?
Pls suggest
Thanks in advancea) Lac is not an international unit, so is not understood by everyone. This is an international forum so please use international units.
b) Please read the FAQ: {message:id=9360002} to learn how to format your question correctly for people to help you.
c) As your question relates to performance tuning, please also read the two threads linked to in the FAQ: {message:id=9360003} for an idea of what specific information you need to provide for people to help you tune your query.

Improving performance of query with View

Hi ,
I'm working on a stored procedure where certain records have to be eleminated , unfortunately tables involved in this exception query are present in a different database which will lead to performance issue. Is there any way in SQL Server to store this query
in a view and store it's execution plan and make it work like sp.While I beleive it's kinda crazy thought but is there any better way to improve performance of query when accessed across databases.
Thanks,
Vishal.

Do not try to solve problems that you have not yet confirmed to exist. There is no general reason why a query (regardless of whether it involves a view) that refers to a table in a different database (NB - DATABASE not INSTANCE) will perform poorly.
As a suggestion, write a working query using a duplicate of the table in the current database. Once it is working, then worry about performance. Once that is working as efficiently as it can , change the query to use the "remote" table rather
than the duplicate. Then determine if you have an issue. If you cannot get the level of performance you desire with a local table, then you most likely have a much larger issue to address. In that case, perhaps you need to change your perspective
and approach to accomplishing your goal.

[sql performance] inline view , group by , max, join

Hi. everyone.
I have a question with regard to "group by" inline view ,
max value, join, and sql performance.
I will give you simple table definitions in order for you
to understand my intention.
Table A (parent)
C1
C2
C3
Table B (child)
C1
C2
C3
C4 number type(sequence number)
1. c1, c2, c3 are the key columns of tabla A.
2. c1, c2, c3, c4 are the key columns of table B.
3. table A is the parent table of Table B.
4. c4 column of table b is the serial number.
(c4 increases from 1 by "1" regarding every (c1,c2,c3)
the following is the simple example of the sql query.
select .................................
from table_a,
(select c1, c2, c3, max(c4)
from table_b
group by c1, c2, c3) table_c
where table_a.c1 = table_c.c1
and table_a.c2 = table_c.c2
and table_a.c3 = table_c.c3
The real query is not simple as above. More tables come
after "the from clause".
Table A and table B are big tables, which have more than
100,000,000 rows.
The response time of this sql is very very slow
as everyone can expect.
Are there any solutions or sql-tips about the late response-time?
I am considering adding a new column into "Table B" in
order to identify the row, which has max serial number.
At this point, I am not sure adding a column is a good
thing in terms of every aspect.
I will be waiting for your advice and every response
will be appreciated even if it is not the solution.
Have a good day.
HO.
Message was edited by:
user507290

For such big sources check that
1) you use full scans, hash joins or at least merge joins
2) you scan your source data as less as possible. In the best case each necessary table only once (for example not using exists clause to effectively scan all table via index scan).
3) how much time you are spending on sorts and hash joins (either from v$session_longops directly or some tool that visualises this info). If you are using workarea_size_policy = auto, probably you can switch to manual for this particular select and adjust sort_area_size and hash_area_size big enough to do as less as possible sorts on disk
4) if you have enough free resources i.e. big box probably you can consider using some parallelism
5) if your full scans are taking big time check what is your db_file_multiblock_read_count, probably increasing it for this select will give some gain.
6) run trace and check on what are you waiting for
7) most probably your problem is IO bound so probably you can do something from OS side to make IO faster
8) if your query now is optimized as much as you can, disks are running as mad and you are using all RAM then probably it is the most you can get out of your box :)
9) if nothing helps then you can start thinking about precalculations either using your idea about derived column or some materialized views.
10) I hope you have a test box and at least point (9) do firstly on it and see whether it helps.
Gints Plivna
http://www.gplivna.eu

Tuning query with inline views

Hi!
I have a performance problem with the following query. I try to combine v1 and v2 into one inline view but because of the recursive design of the tables workflow and workflow_node it didn't work.
Does anybody has an idea for tuning this query?
SELECT distinct v1.u_protocol_id
   FROM ( SELECT workflow_node.workflow_id,u_protocol.u_protocol_id
               FROM workflow_node,workflow,U_protocol
               WHERE workflow.workflow_id=workflow_node.workflow_id
                 AND u_protocol.u_protocol_id = workflow_node.parameter_2
              AND workflow_node.workflow_node_type_id=17
              AND workflow.workflow_node_type_id=42
         ) v1,
         ( SELECT workflow_node.workflow_id,test_template.test_template_id
           FROM workflow_node,test_template
           WHERE test_template.test_template_id = workflow_node.template
             AND workflow_node.order_number = 1
             AND workflow_node.workflow_node_type_id=42
         ) v2,
         ( SELECT aliquot.aliquot_id,test_template.test_template_id
           FROM aliquot,test,test_template
           WHERE aliquot.aliquot_id = test.aliquot_id
             AND test.test_template_id = test_template.test_template_id
         ) v3
   WHERE v1.workflow_id = v2.workflow_id
     AND v2.test_template_id= v3.test_template_id

I have found a script (utlxplan.sql) for creating the plan_table so here it is
SQL> @c:\utlxplan.sql;
Table created.
SQL> EXPLAIN PLAN FOR SELECT distinct v1.u_protocol_id
2     FROM ( SELECT workflow_node.workflow_id,u_protocol.u_protocol_id
3         FROM lims_sys.workflow_node,lims_sys.workflow,lims_sys.U_protocol
4         WHERE workflow.workflow_id=workflow_node.workflow_id
5           AND u_protocol.u_protocol_id = workflow_node.parameter_2
6        AND workflow_node.workflow_node_type_id=17
7        AND workflow.workflow_node_type_id=42
8       ) v1,
9       ( SELECT workflow_node.workflow_id,test_template.test_template_id
10         FROM lims_sys.aliquot,lims_sys.test,lims_sys.workflow_node,lims_sys.test_template
11         WHERE aliquot.aliquot_id = test.aliquot_id
12           AND test.test_template_id = test_template.test_template_id
13     AND test_template.test_template_id = workflow_node.template
14       ) v2
15     WHERE v1.workflow_id = v2.workflow_id
16 /
Explained.
SQL> SELECT * FROM TABLE(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation                           | Name                           |
Rows | Bytes | Cost |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                    |                                 |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
      |       |       |
|   1 | SORT UNIQUE                        |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   2 |   FILTER                            |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   3 |    NESTED LOOPS                     |                                 |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|   4 |     NESTED LOOPS                    |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   5 |      NESTED LOOPS                   |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   6 |       NESTED LOOPS                  |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   7 |        NESTED LOOPS                 |                                 |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
|   8 |         NESTED LOOPS                |                                 |
      |       |       |
|   9 |          TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| WORKFLOW                        |
      |       |       |
|* 10 |           INDEX RANGE SCAN          | FK_WORKFLOW_WORKFLOW_NODE_TYPE |
      |       |       |
| 11 |          TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| WORKFLOW_NODE                   |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
      |       |       |
| 12 |           AND-EQUAL                 |                                 |
      |       |       |
|* 13 |            INDEX RANGE SCAN         | FK_WORKFLOW_NODE_WORKFLOW       |
      |       |       |
|* 14 |            INDEX RANGE SCAN         | FK_WORKFLOW_NODE_NODE_TYPE      |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 15 |         TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | U_PROTOCOL                      |
      |       |       |
|* 16 |          INDEX UNIQUE SCAN          | PK_U_PROTOCOL                   |
      |       |       |
| 17 |        TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | WORKFLOW_NODE                   |
      |       |       |
|* 18 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN            | FK_WORKFLOW_NODE_WORKFLOW       |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 19 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID   | TEST_TEMPLATE                   |
      |       |       |
|* 20 |        INDEX UNIQUE SCAN            | PK_TEST_TEMPLATE                |
      |       |       |
| 21 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID    | TEST                            |
      |       |       |
|* 22 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN              | FK_TEST_TEST_TEMPLATE           |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
      |       |       |
| 23 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID     | ALIQUOT                         |
      |       |       |
|* 24 |      INDEX UNIQUE SCAN              | PK_ALIQUOT                      |
      |       |       |
| 25 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_OPERATOR_GROUP               |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| 26 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_OPERATOR_GROUP               |
      |       |       |
| 27 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_OPERATOR_GROUP               |
      |       |       |
| 28 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_OPERATOR_GROUP               |
      |       |       |
| 29 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_OPERATOR_GROUP               |
      |       |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
10 - access("SYS_ALIAS_5"."WORKFLOW_NODE_TYPE_ID"=42)
13 - access("SYS_ALIAS_5"."WORKFLOW_ID"="WORKFLOW_NODE"."WORKFLOW_ID")
14 - access("WORKFLOW_NODE"."WORKFLOW_NODE_TYPE_ID"=17)
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
16 - access("SYS_ALIAS_4"."U_PROTOCOL_ID"=TO_NUMBER("WORKFLOW_NODE"."PARAMETER
_2"))
18 - access("WORKFLOW_NODE"."WORKFLOW_ID"="WORKFLOW_NODE"."WORKFLOW_ID")
20 - access("SYS_ALIAS_1"."TEST_TEMPLATE_ID"="WORKFLOW_NODE"."TEMPLATE")
22 - access("SYS_ALIAS_2"."TEST_TEMPLATE_ID"="SYS_ALIAS_1"."TEST_TEMPLATE_ID")
24 - access("SYS_ALIAS_3"."ALIQUOT_ID"="SYS_ALIAS_2"."ALIQUOT_ID")
Note: rule based optimization

How to improve performance of the attached query

Hi,
How to improve performance of the below query, Please help. also attached explain plan -
SELECT Camp.Id,
rCam.AccountKey,
Camp.Id,
CamBilling.Cpm,
CamBilling.Cpc,
CamBilling.FlatRate,
Camp.CampaignKey,
Camp.AccountKey,
CamBilling.billoncontractedamount,
(SUM(rCam.Impressions) * 0.001 + SUM(rCam.Clickthrus)) AS GR,
rCam.AccountKey as AccountKey
FROM Campaign Camp, rCamSit rCam, CamBilling, Site xSite
WHERE Camp.AccountKey = rCam.AccountKey
AND Camp.AvCampaignKey = rCam.AvCampaignKey
AND Camp.AccountKey = CamBilling.AccountKey
AND Camp.CampaignKey = CamBilling.CampaignKey
AND rCam.AccountKey = xSite.AccountKey
AND rCam.AvSiteKey = xSite.AvSiteKey
AND rCam.RmWhen BETWEEN to_date('01-01-2009', 'DD-MM-YYYY') and
to_date('01-01-2011', 'DD-MM-YYYY')
GROUP By rCam.AccountKey,
Camp.Id,
CamBilling.Cpm,
CamBilling.Cpc,
CamBilling.FlatRate,
Camp.CampaignKey,
Camp.AccountKey,
CamBilling.billoncontractedamount
Explain Plan :-
Description Object_owner Object_name Cost Cardinality Bytes
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = ALL_ROWS 14 1 13
SORT AGGREGATE 1 13
VIEW GEMINI_REPORTING 14 1 13
HASH GROUP BY 14 1 103
NESTED LOOPS 13 1 103
HASH JOIN 12 1 85
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_REPORTING RCAMSIT 2 4 100
NESTED LOOPS 9 5 325
HASH JOIN 7 1 40
SORT UNIQUE 2 1 18
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE 2 1 18
INDEX RANGE SCAN GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE_I0 1 1
TABLE ACCESS FULL GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE 3 27 594
INDEX RANGE SCAN GEMINI_REPORTING RCAMSIT_I 1 1 5
TABLE ACCESS FULL GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMPAIGN 3 127 2540
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMBILLING 1 1 18
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMBILLING_U1 0 1

duplicate thread..
How to improve performance of attached query

How to improve performance of attached query

Hi,
How to improve performance of the below query, Please help. also attached explain plan -
SELECT Camp.Id,
rCam.AccountKey,
Camp.Id,
CamBilling.Cpm,
CamBilling.Cpc,
CamBilling.FlatRate,
Camp.CampaignKey,
Camp.AccountKey,
CamBilling.billoncontractedamount,
(SUM(rCam.Impressions) * 0.001 + SUM(rCam.Clickthrus)) AS GR,
rCam.AccountKey as AccountKey
FROM Campaign Camp, rCamSit rCam, CamBilling, Site xSite
WHERE Camp.AccountKey = rCam.AccountKey
AND Camp.AvCampaignKey = rCam.AvCampaignKey
AND Camp.AccountKey = CamBilling.AccountKey
AND Camp.CampaignKey = CamBilling.CampaignKey
AND rCam.AccountKey = xSite.AccountKey
AND rCam.AvSiteKey = xSite.AvSiteKey
AND rCam.RmWhen BETWEEN to_date('01-01-2009', 'DD-MM-YYYY') and
to_date('01-01-2011', 'DD-MM-YYYY')
GROUP By rCam.AccountKey,
Camp.Id,
CamBilling.Cpm,
CamBilling.Cpc,
CamBilling.FlatRate,
Camp.CampaignKey,
Camp.AccountKey,
CamBilling.billoncontractedamount
Explain Plan :-
Description Object_owner Object_name Cost Cardinality Bytes
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = ALL_ROWS 14 1 13
SORT AGGREGATE 1 13
VIEW GEMINI_REPORTING 14 1 13
HASH GROUP BY 14 1 103
NESTED LOOPS 13 1 103
HASH JOIN 12 1 85
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_REPORTING RCAMSIT 2 4 100
NESTED LOOPS 9 5 325
HASH JOIN 7 1 40
SORT UNIQUE 2 1 18
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE 2 1 18
INDEX RANGE SCAN GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE_I0 1 1
TABLE ACCESS FULL GEMINI_PRIMARY SITE 3 27 594
INDEX RANGE SCAN GEMINI_REPORTING RCAMSIT_I 1 1 5
TABLE ACCESS FULL GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMPAIGN 3 127 2540
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMBILLING 1 1 18
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GEMINI_PRIMARY CAMBILLING_U1 0 1

duplicate thread..
How to improve performance of attached query

Poor performance: portal report using inline views

I have created a portal report that uses inline views that performs terribly. It has 6 inline views. When I cut out half the views, the performance doubles. When I run the same query in sql + on my portal database with all the views, I get the results back instantly. Any ideas on what is causing the performance hit in portal? Any ideas on a remedy?

More info
SELECT patch_no, count(*) frequency
FROM users_requests
WHERE patchset IN (SELECT arps2.patchset_name
FROM aru_bugfix_relationships abr, aru_bugfixes ab, aru_status_codes ac,
aru_patchsets arps, aru_patchsets arps2
WHERE arps.patchset_name = '11i.FIN_PF.E'
AND abr.bugfix_id = ab.bugfix_id
AND arps.bugfix_id = ab.bugfix_id
AND abr.relation_type = ac.status_id
AND arps2.bugfix_id = abr.related_bugfix_id
AND abr.relation_type IN (601, 602))
AND included ='Y'
GROUP BY patch_no
order by frequency desc, patch_no
Runs < 1 sec from SQL navigator and from portal (if i hardcode the value for fampack.
Takes ~50 secs if i replace with :fampack and set default value to 11i.FIN_PF.D

Options to control display performance of CLOBs, etc. in Query Result view?

Whenever I attempt to query a table that contains LOBs (e.g. a CLOB or XMLTYPE), the lack of performance pretty much makes the "Query Result" view (from F9) unusable. Any time I attempt to scroll the results, SQL developer apparently continues to query the database for the additional characters to populate the view.
Resizing the columns containing the LOB to only a few characters almost solves the issue. Unfortunately, the size of the columns showing the LOBs apparently attempt to resize to the length of the LOB, making the column several pages long - and the same performance issue prevents resizing it smaller.
Ideally, there would be some way to resize a column to a given or even a predefined and small size, without having to drag the resize handle the entire width of the desired resize amount. Alternatively, there could be a user preference to never set default column widths above a given number of pixels or characters. Another option would be a user preference to disable the in-line display of LOB contents, displaying only and requiring a click on the "..." (or pencil icon) button to open the "View Value" dialog. Ideally, all 3 of these options could be implemented.
One crude work-around I'm using for now is to exclude the LOB columns from the results, requiring me to make secondary queries to see the LOB contents when necessary, and doesn't allow for scrolling through and viewing the LOB contents at all. Another work-around is to run the query as a script (F5) instead of a query (F9), and view the results in the "Script Output" view instead.
I'm currently using SQL Developer 2.1.0.63, but experienced this same issue with all previous versions, including 1.5.5.
Thanks!

I agree.
When I requested to auto-width the columns, I said to build in a maximum, but apparently they didn't.
I suggest you log 2 feature requests on the SQL Developer Exchange; 1 for the maximum width, 1 for the CLOB contents/performance. Like this others can vote too and add weight for future implementation (I will).
Have fun,
K.

Can You Explain This SQL Query - Inline View Included

The query is taken from "Oracle Database 10g: SQL Fundamentals II" page 3-7 (chapter 3)
I do not fully understand the following query:
SELECT a.last_name, a.salary, a.department_id, b.salavg
FROM   employees a, (SELECT   department_id,
AVG(salary) salavg
FROM     employees
GROUP BY department_id) b
WHERE a.department_id = b.department_id
AND    a.salary > b.salavg;
The inline view can return several records. Can you please tell me in step by step how does this work. I understand the concept of join tables and aliases, etc. I just need to know the mechanism of this code.
Thanks

user11164565 wrote:
The query is taken from "Oracle Database 10g: SQL Fundamentals II" page 3-7 (chapter 3)
I do not fully understand the following query:
SELECT a.last_name, a.salary, a.department_id, b.salavg
FROM   employees a, (SELECT   department_id,
AVG(salary) salavg
FROM     employees
GROUP BY department_id) b
WHERE a.department_id = b.department_id
AND    a.salary > b.salavg;
The inline view can return several records. Can you please tell me in step by step how does this work. I understand the concept of join tables and aliases, etc. I just need to know the mechanism of this code.
The query is returning the last name, salary , department and average salary of all the departments where salary is greater than the average salary.
HTH
Aman....

Need to improve Performance of select...endselect query

Hi experts,
I have a query in my program like below with inner join of 3 tables.
In my program used select....endselect   again inside this select...endselect statements used..
While executing in production taking lot of time to fetch records. Can anyone suggest to improve performance of below query urgently...
Greatly appreciated ur help...
SELECT MVKEDWERK MVKEMATNR MVKEVKORG MVKEVTWEG MARA~MATNR
       MARAMTART ZM012MTART ZM012ZLIND ZM012ZPRICEREF
INTO (MVKE-DWERK , MVKE-MATNR , MVKE-VKORG , MVKE-VTWEG , MARA-MATNR
     , MARA-MTART , ZM012-MTART , ZM012-ZLIND , ZM012-ZPRICEREF )
FROM ( MVKE
       INNER JOIN MARA
       ON MARAMATNR = MVKEMATNR
       INNER JOIN ZM012
       ON ZM012MTART = MARAMTART )
       WHERE MVKE~DWERK IN SP$00004
         AND MVKE~MATNR IN SP$00001
         AND MVKE~VKORG IN SP$00002
         AND MVKE~VTWEG IN SP$00003
         AND MARA~MTART IN SP$00005
         AND ZM012~ZLIND IN SP$00006
         AND ZM012~ZPRICEREF IN SP$00007.
%DBACC = %DBACC - 1.
IF %DBACC = 0.
    STOP.
ENDIF.
CHECK SP$00005.
CHECK SP$00004.
CHECK SP$00001.
CHECK SP$00002.
CHECK SP$00003.
CHECK SP$00006.
CHECK SP$00007.
clear Check_PR00.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'PR00'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_PR00 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00008.
clear Check_ZPR0.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZPR0'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00009.
clear ZFMP.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZFMP'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
ZFMP = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00010.
clear mastercost.
clear ZDCF.
select * from A004
where kappl = 'V'
and kschl = 'ZDCF'
and vkorg = mvke-vkorg
and vtweg = mvke-vtweg
and matnr = mvke-matnr
and DATAB le sy-datum
and DATBI ge sy-datum.
if sy-subrc = 0.
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
ZDCF = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
endif.
endselect.
CHECK SP$00011.
clear masterprice.
clear Standardcost.
select * from mbew
where matnr = mvke-matnr
and bwkey = mvke-dwerk.
Standardcost = mbew-stprs.
mastercost = MBEW-BWPRH.
masterprice = mBEW-BWPH1.
endselect.
ADD 1 TO %COUNT-MVKE.
%LINR-MVKE = '01'.
EXTRACT %FG01.
%EXT-MVKE01 = 'X'.
    EXTRACT %FGWRMVKE01.
ENDSELECT.
best rgds..
hari..

Hi there.
Some advices:
- why going to MVKE first and MARA then? You will find n rows in MVKE for 1 matnr, and then go n times to the same record in MARA. Do the oposite, i.e, go first to MARA (1 time per matnr) and then to MVKE.
- avoid select *, you will save time.
- use trace or measure performance in tcodes ST05 and SM30.
- replace:
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
if sy-subrc = 0.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
endif.
endselect.
by
select * from konp
where knumh = a004-knumh.
Check_ZPR0 = konp-kbetr.
exit.
endselect.
Here, if I understood, you only need to atribute kbetr value to Check_ZPR0 if selecting anything (don't need the IF because if enters in select, subrc always equal to 0, and also don't need to do it several times from same a004-knumh - reason for the EXIT.
Hope this helps.
Regards.
Valter Oliveira.
Edited by: Valter Oliveira on Jun 5, 2008 3:16 PM

How to improve performance of my query

Hello Friends,
Good Morning.
I am having the following query which is never ending - Can any one throw some light on how to improve the performance of my said said query ..This is the query generated in ODI ( ORACLE DATA INTEGRATOR 11G )
The only thing I can put in this query is optimizers
- issue resolved
Please advice .
Thanks / Kumar
Edited by: kumar73 on May 18, 2012 6:38 AM
Edited by: kumar73 on May 18, 2012 6:39 AM
Edited by: kumar73 on May 18, 2012 12:04 PM

The two DISTINCTs are redundant, as UNION results in unique records, as a set can't have duplicates.
Other than that the query is not formatted and unreadable, and you didn't provide a description of the tables involved.
Your strategy seems to be maximum help from this forum with minimum effort from yourself, other than hitting copy and paste.
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Improve performance of an inline view query

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for