Optimizing the Query.

Hello All,
I need to uptimize the below query. I am using oralce 9i and rule base optimisation.
"SELECT sp.store_cd wr_store_cd, l.store_cd, l.loc_cd, l.loc_tp_cd,
sp.pd_cd, MIN(sp.priority), MIN(sp.ck_showroom)
FROM store$pri sp, loc l
WHERE l.store_cd >= nvl(sp.beg_store_cd,' ')
 AND l.store_cd <= nvl(sp.end_store_cd,' ')
AND l.loc_cd >= nvl(sp.beg_loc_cd,' ')
 AND l.loc_cd <= nvl(sp.end_loc_cd,' ')
AND l.pick = 'Y'
GROUP BY sp.store_cd, sp.pd_cd, l.store_cd, l.loc_cd, l.loc_tp_cd
ORDER BY wr_store_cd, pd_cd, MIN(priority), l.store_cd;"
In the above query LOC table has the less data and STORE$PRI table has the more data. Also in the LOC table there is a Index (Composit) with LOC_cd and STORE_CD column. In the STORE$PRI table there are no index in the beg_store_cd, end_store_cd, beg_loc_cd and end_loc_cd column. Also if I am creating the index on it as I am using the NVL function it is not doing the index scan.
Any suggestion how to optimize this query. It is taking 250 minute for getting the 396750 records. In LOC table there are 28859 records and in STORE$PRI table there are 465 redords.
I am putting below the explan plan data.
<pre>
Operation Object Name Rows Bytes Cost Object Node In/Out PStart PStop
SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer Mode=RULE
SORT ORDER BY
SORT GROUP BY
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID INV.LOC
NESTED LOOPS
TABLE ACCESS FULL SALES.STORE$PRI
INDEX RANGE SCAN INV.LOC_PK
</pre>
Trce File Data:-
<pre>
recursive calls 793
db block gets 113
consistent gets 32377
physical reads 211
redo size 15044
bytes sent via SQL*Net to client 1431124
bytes received via SQL*Net from client 49632
SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client 1357
sorts (memory) 4
sorts (disk) 0
</pre>
Regards
SUN
Edited by: User SUN@ on Sep 17, 2008 6:51 PM
Edited by: User SUN@ on Sep 17, 2008 9:09 PM

could you please tell me how to use has join in the query?Hash joins are not a feature of the rule based optimizer. Normally you would keep your stats up to date and the cost-based optimizer will choose a hash join automatically where appropriate. Why are you using RBO?

Similar Messages

Plz help in optimizing the query

I have a query which is written to cater to the scenario that the entered start and end date do not overlap with the start and end date already present in the database records. Can someone help in optimizing this query. all inclusion and exclusion scenario's have to be taken care of.
the query is as follows:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM CLAS WHERE TRIM(UPPER(CLAS_CDE)) =UPPER('timecheck') AND TRIM(UPPER(CLAS_TYPE_CDE))=UPPER('TEST_3')
AND TRIM(UPPER(LANG_CDE))=UPPER('en')
AND (
(END_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
OR
(START_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
OR (
(START_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
AND
(END_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
OR(('09/13/2007' BETWEEN TO_CHAR(START_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_CHAR(END_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY'))
AND ('09/15/2007' BETWEEN TO_CHAR(START_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_CHAR(END_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY'))
);

I format your code in different way:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM CLAS
WHERE TRIM(UPPER(CLAS_CDE)) = UPPER('timecheck')
AND TRIM(UPPER(CLAS_TYPE_CDE))=UPPER('TEST_3')
AND TRIM(UPPER(LANG_CDE))=UPPER('en')
   AND (
     (END_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
        OR
     (START_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
        OR (
          (START_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
          AND
          (END_DT BETWEEN TO_DATE('09/13/2007','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('09/15/2007','MM/DD/YYYY'))
     OR (
          ('09/13/2007' BETWEEN TO_CHAR(START_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_CHAR(END_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY'))
          AND
          ('09/15/2007' BETWEEN TO_CHAR(START_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_CHAR(END_DT,'MM/DD/YYYY'))
      );First thought that cross my mind it to check if changing this:
UPPER('timecheck') to simple:
'TIMECHECK' and do the same with other expressions with UPPER function.
Peter D.

Need help in optimizing the query with joins and group by clause

I am having problem in executing the query below.. it is taking lot of time. To simplify, I have added the two tables FILE_STATUS = stores the file load details and COMM table that is actual business commission table showing records successfully processed and which records were transmitted to other system. Records with status = T is trasnmitted to other system and traansactions with P is pending.
CREATE TABLE FILE_STATUS
(FILE_ID VARCHAR2(14),
FILE_NAME VARCHAR2(20),
CARR_CD VARCHAR2(5),
TOT_REC NUMBER,
TOT_SUCC NUMBER);
CREATE TABLE COMM
(SRC_FILE_ID VARCHAR2(14),
REC_ID NUMBER,
STATUS CHAR(1));
INSERT INTO FILE_STATUS VALUES ('12345678', 'CM_LIBM.TXT', 'LIBM', 5, 4);
INSERT INTO FILE_STATUS VALUES ('12345679', 'CM_HIPNT.TXT', 'HIPNT', 4, 0);
INSERT INTO COMM VALUES ('12345678', 1, 'T');
INSERT INTO COMM VALUES ('12345678', 3, 'T');
INSERT INTO COMM VALUES ('12345678', 4, 'P');
INSERT INTO COMM VALUES ('12345678', 5, 'P');
COMMIT;Here is the query that I wrote to give me the details of the file that has been loaded into the system. It reads the file status and commission table to show file name, total records loaded, total records successfully loaded to the commission table and number of records that has been finally transmitted (status=T) to other systems.
SELECT
    FS.CARR_CD
    ,FS.FILE_NAME
    ,FS.FILE_ID
    ,FS.TOT_REC
    ,FS.TOT_SUCC
    ,NVL(C.TOT_TRANS, 0) TOT_TRANS
FROM FILE_STATUS FS
LEFT JOIN
    SELECT SRC_FILE_ID, COUNT(*) TOT_TRANS
    FROM COMM
    WHERE STATUS = 'T'
    GROUP BY SRC_FILE_ID
) C ON C.SRC_FILE_ID = FS.FILE_ID
WHERE FILE_ID = '12345678';In production this query has more joins and is taking lot of time to process.. the main culprit for me is the join on COMM table to get the count of number of transactions transmitted. Please can you give me tips to optimize this query to get results faster? Do I need to remove group and use partition or something else. Please help!

I get 2 rows if I use my query with your new criteria. Did you commit the record if you are using a second connection to query? Did you remove the criteria for file_id?
select carr_cd, file_name, file_id, tot_rec, tot_succ, tot_trans
from (select fs.carr_cd,
               fs.file_name,
               fs.file_id,
               fs.tot_rec,
               fs.tot_succ,
               count(case
                        when c.status = 'T' then
                         1
                        else
                         null
                      end) over(partition by c.src_file_id) tot_trans,
               row_number() over(partition by c.src_file_id order by null) rn
          from file_status fs
          left join comm c
            on c.src_file_id = fs.file_id
         where carr_cd = 'LIBM')
where rn = 1;
CARR_CD FILE_NAME            FILE_ID           TOT_REC   TOT_SUCC TOT_TRANS
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345678                5          4          2
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345677               10          0          0Using RANK can potentially produce multiple rows to be returned though your data may prevent this. ROW_NUMBER will always prevent duplicates. The ordering of the analytical function is irrelevant in your query if you use ROW_NUMBER. You can remove the outermost query and inspect the data returned by the inner query;
select fs.carr_cd,
       fs.file_name,
       fs.file_id,
       fs.tot_rec,
       fs.tot_succ,
       count(case
                when c.status = 'T' then
                 1
                else
                 null
              end) over(partition by c.src_file_id) tot_trans,
       row_number() over(partition by c.src_file_id order by null) rn
from file_status fs
left join comm c
on c.src_file_id = fs.file_id
where carr_cd = 'LIBM';
CARR_CD FILE_NAME            FILE_ID           TOT_REC   TOT_SUCC TOT_TRANS         RN
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345678                5          4          2          1
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345678                5          4          2          2
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345678                5          4          2          3
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345678                5          4          2          4
LIBM    CM_LIBM.TXT          12345677               10          0          0          1

Help required in optimizing the query response time

Hi,
I am working on a application which uses a jdbc thin client. My requirement is to select all the table rows in one table and use the column values to select data in another table in another database.
The first table can have maximum of 6 million rows but the second table rows will be around 9000.
My first query is returning within 30-40 milliseconds when the table is having 200000 rows. But when I am iterating the result set and query the second table the query is taking around 4 millisecond for each query.
the second query selection criteria is to find the value in the range .
for example my_table ( varchar2 column1, varchar2 start_range, varchar2 end_range);
My first query returns a result which then will be used to select using the following query
select column1 from my_table where start_range < my_value and end_range> my_value;
I have created an index on start_range and end_range. this query is taking around 4 millisseconds which I think is too much.
I am using a preparedStatement for the second query loop.
Can some one suggest me how I can improve the query response time?
Regards,
Shyam

Try the code below.
Pre-requistee: you should know how to pass ARRAY objects to oracle and receive resultsets from java. There are 1000s of samples available on net.
I have written a sample db code for the same interraction.
Procedure get_list takes a array input from java and returns the record set back to java. You can change the tablenames and the creteria.
Good luck.
DROP TYPE idlist;
CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE idlist AS TABLE OF NUMBER;
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE mypkg1
AS
 PROCEDURE get_list (myval_list idlist, orefcur OUT sys_refcursor);
END mypkg1;
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY mypkg1
AS
 PROCEDURE get_list (myval_list idlist, orefcur OUT sys_refcursor)
 AS
 ctr NUMBER;
 BEGIN
 DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line (myval_list.COUNT);
 FOR x IN (SELECT object_name, object_id, myvalue
 FROM user_objects a,
 (SELECT myval_list (ROWNUM + 1) myvalue
 FROM TABLE (myval_list)) b
 WHERE a.object_id < b.myvalue)
 LOOP
 DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line ( x.object_name
 || ' - '
 || x.object_id
 || ' - '
 || x.myvalue
 END LOOP;
 END;
END mypkg1;
[pre]
Testing the code above. Make sure dbms output is ON.
[pre]
DECLARE
 a idlist;
 refc sys_refcursor;
 c number;
BEGIN
 SELECT x.nu
 BULK COLLECT INTO a
 FROM (SELECT 5000 nu
 FROM DUAL) x;
 mypkg1.get_list (a, refc);
END;
[pre]
Vishal V.

Optimizing the query - which takes more time

Hi,
Am having a query which was returning the results pretty fast one week back but now the same query takes more time to respond, nothing much changed in the table data, what could be the problem. Am using IN in the where clause, whether that could be an issue? if so what is the best method of rewriting the query.
SELECT RI.RESOURCE_NAME,TR.MSISDN,MAX(TR.ADDRESS1_GOOGLE) KEEP(DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY TR.MSG_DATE_INFO) ADDRESS1_GOOGLE,
                MAX(TR.TIME_STAMP) MSG_DATE_INFO FROM TRACKING_REPORT TR, RESOURCE_INFO RI
                WHERE TR.MSISDN IN ( SELECT MSISDN FROM RESOURCE_INFO WHERE GROUP_ID ='4'
               AND COM_ID='12') AND RI.MSISDN = TR.MSISDN
               GROUP BY RI.RESOURCE_NAME,TR.MSISDN ORDER BY MSG_DATE_INFO DESC

Hi
i have followed this link http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/awcourse/oracle/server.920/a96533/sqltrace.htm in enabling the trace and found out the following trace output, can you explain the problem here and its remedial action pls.
SELECT RI.RESOURCE_NAME,TR.MSISDN,MAX(TR.ADDRESS1_GOOGLE) KEEP(DENSE_RANK
LAST ORDER BY TR.MSG_DATE_INFO) ADDRESS1_GOOGLE,                      MAX(TR.TIME_STAMP)
MSG_DATE_INFO
FROM
TRACKING_REPORT TR, RESOURCE_INFO RI                          WHERE RI.GROUP_ID ='426'                         AND
RI.COM_ID='122' AND RI.MSISDN = TR.MSISDN                      GROUP BY RI.RESOURCE_NAME,
TR.MSISDN
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.01       0.02          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        6     13.69     389.03      81747     280722          0          72
total        8     13.70     389.05      81747     280722          0          72
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 281
Rows     Row Source Operation
     72 SORT GROUP BY
276558   NESTED LOOPS
     79    TABLE ACCESS FULL RESOURCE_INFO
276558    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TRACKING_REPORT
276558     INDEX RANGE SCAN TR_INDX_ON_MSISDN_TIME (object id 60507)
********************************************************************************and the plan_table output is
STATEMENT_ID     TIMESTAMP     REMARKS     OPERATION     OPTIONS     OBJECT_NODE     OBJECT_OWNER     OBJECT_NAME     OBJECT_INSTANCE     OBJECT_TYPE     OPTIMIZER     SEARCH_COLUMNS     ID     PARENT_ID     POSITION     COST     CARDINALITY     BYTES     OTHER_TAG     PARTITION_START     PARTITION_STOP     PARTITION_ID     OTHER     DISTRIBUTION     CPU_COST     IO_COST     TEMP_SPACE     ACCESS_PREDICATES     FILTER_PREDICATES
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          SELECT STATEMENT                                   CHOOSE          0          115     115     1058     111090                                        115
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          SORT     GROUP BY                                        1     0     1     115     1058     111090                                        115
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          NESTED LOOPS                                             2     1     1     9     4603     483315                                        9
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          TABLE ACCESS     FULL          BSNL_RTMS     RESOURCE_INFO     2          ANALYZED          3     2     1     8     1     30                                        8               "RI"."GROUP_ID"=426 AND "RI"."COM_ID"='122'
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          TABLE ACCESS     BY INDEX ROWID          BSNL_RTMS     TRACKING_REPORT     1          ANALYZED          4     2     2     1     3293     246975                                        1
     23-Mar-11 23:36:45          INDEX     RANGE SCAN          BSNL_RTMS     TR_INDX_ON_MSISDN_TIME          NON-UNIQUE          1     5     4     1     1     3293                                             1          "RI"."MSISDN"="TR"."MSISDN"

Optimizing the Query joining two tables multiple times

Hi all,
I need to formulate a query where I want to get data from two tables.Here are the table structures and sample data.
Table1
id firstname lastname accountnumber
1 Sridh Peter SP456
2 Gane San SS667
3 Sway patel PP345
Table 2
id attributename attributevalue
1 Manager Mike
1 Lawyer Schwa
1 Server maneka
1 location langur
1 System Novel
2 Manager kane
2 lawyer endun
2 location colrado
3 server queen
3 system elanda
The requirement is I need to generate a report like th follwoing
Accountnumber firstname lastname manager lawyer System Server location
SP456 Sridh Peter Mike schwa Novel maneka langur
SS667 Gane San kane endun colrado
Now I have done this report using a query where I join table1 and table2 multiple times to get the report's data. And that query only works If the user has all attributes.If any one attribut is missing it wont work.Can some onehelp me with this.
The query i am using looks like this.
select a.accountnumber,a.firstname,a.lastname,b.attributevalue,c.attributevalue, d.attributevalue, e.attributevalue,f.attributevalue from table1 a,table2 b where a.id=b.id and a.id=c.id and a.id=d.id and a.id=e.id and a.id=f.id and b.attributename ='manager' and c.attributename ='lawyer' and d.attributename='system' and e.attributename='server' and f.attributename='location'
this query works well if a user has all attributes ,if any one is missing he is not shown in the report.Can some one suggest me a good way of querying than this.
The query I am using is also taking lot of time..I think I have explained my question well ,please reply if you have questions.
Thanks for reading till here patiently,
Pandu

....if this .....
<DIV>
select
Accountnumber||' '||firstname||' '||lastname||'
'||manager||' '||System||' '||Server||' '||location from (select
* 
from (select '1'
id, 'Sridh' firstname, 'Peter' lastname, 'SP456'
accountnumber from dual union 
select '2' id, 'Gane' firstname, 'San' lastname, 'SS667' accountnumber from dual union select
'3' id, 'Sway' firstname, 'patel' lastname, 'PP345' accountnumber from dual) x, 
(select * from
(select id, attributename, 
lead(attributevalue,0) over (partition by id order
by id) as Manager, 
lead(attributevalue,1) over (partition by id order
by id) as Lawyer, 
lead(attributevalue,2) over (partition by id order
by id) as System, 
lead(attributevalue,3) over (partition by id order
by id) as
Server, 
lead(attributevalue,4) over
(partition by id
order by id) as Location 
from (select *
from
(select '1' id, 'Manager' attributename, 'Mike' attributevalue from dual union select
'1' id, 'Lawyer' attributename, 'Schwa'
attributevalue from dual union select
'1' id, 'Server' attributename, 'maneka'
attributevalue from dual union 
select '1' id, 'location' attributename, 'langur' attributevalue from dual union 
select '1' id, 'System' attributename, 'Novel' attributevalue from dual union select
'2' id, 'Manager' attributename, 'kane'
attributevalue from dual union select
'2' id, 'lawyer' attributename, 'endun'
attributevalue from dual union 
select '2' id, 'location' attributename, 'colrado' attributevalue from dual union select
'3' id, 'server' attributename, 'queen'
attributevalue from dual union select
'3' id, 'system' attributename, 'elanda'
attributevalue from dual) order
by id, (case when attributename='Manager' then
1 
when attributename='Lawyer' then 2 
when attributename='System' then 3 
when attributename='Server' then 4 
when attributename='Location' then 5 end) asc)) 
where attributename='Manager')
y where x.id(+)=y.id)</DIV>
< Jonel

Optimizing the query containing 7 table joins

hi,, I have a query which is taking almost 20 minutes to retrieve the data from DB. let me know how can i further optimize the query.. the tables contains huge amount of data
Table1 a -> 1040131 rows
Table2 b -> 1040131 rows
Table3 c -> 2080262 rows
Table4 d -> 2749 rows
Table5 e -> 1040131 rows,
Table6 f -> 93819 rows
Table7 g -> 99203 rows
My query is
SELECT a.lid, g.image, f.product , d.manufacturer, b.desc, c.price, c.abbr, c.currency, c.class
FROM
Table1 a,
Table2 b,
Table3 c,
Table4 d,
Table5 e,
Table6 f,
Table7 g
WHERE (UPPER(b.desc) like '%TEST%' OR UPPER(b.desc) like '%BEST%')
and a.line = b.line
AND a.line = c.line
AND c.subset = 576
AND a.manufacturer = d.manufacturer
AND a.line = e.line
and a.product = f.product
and e.image = g.image
Please tell me how can i optimize this query further to work faster

user1708333 wrote:
WHERE (UPPER(b.desc) like '%TEST%' OR UPPER(b.desc) like '%BEST%')
I would imagine that that line is the main culprit.
You are doing a free text search which will always result in a full table scan the way you are doing it.
If you need free text searching then you should consider using [Oracle Text|http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/text/index.html]

Optimizing the query performance?

When I run this query it takes 2-3 hours to bring the data. It pulls the data starting 2008 december. How can I optimize the performance for the below query?
SELECT e1.Eventdate,
TO_CHAR( TO_DATE (e1.eventdate, 'mmddyyyy, ), 'MM/DD/YYYY HH24:MI:SS' ),
e1.USERID,
Vu.display_name_FMLS as displayname,
e1.eventdetail1,
e1.eventtype
FROM event e1,
View_User VU
WHERE ((Vu.USERid = e1.USERID) or (Vu.UserLanid = e1.Userid))
AND Vu.Useractive ='1' and
e1.eventtype = 'SRCH'
AND e1.eventresults = '1'
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM event e2
WHERE e2.userid = e1.userid
AND e2.eventtype IN ('OPENTPC', 'OPENFAQ', 'KEYFACT')
AND e2.eventrecordid =
(SELECT MIN (eventrecordid)
FROM event e3
WHERE e3.userid = e2.userid
AND e3.eventrecordid > e1.eventrecordid))

not quite sure what your requirements are but just looking at this your are selecting from the same table (event) 3 times. couldn't you just get everything you need from the event table up front and then use case statements or aggregate functions or something to just pull the stuff you want.
maybe if you gave a bit of sample data and what the output should look like someone might come up with an approach that doesn't involve mutiple selects from the same table.

Performance of the query

Hello Guys,
iam having performance problem with query .when i run the the query with intial variables its displaying report quickly but when i go drilling with filter values its taking 10 minutes to display report.can anybody suggest me possible solutions for the performance improvement.
Regards
Priya

Hi Priya,
First, you have to check what is causing the performance issue. You can do this by running the query in transaction RSRT. Execute the query in debug mode with the option "Display Statistics Data". You can navigate the query as you would normally. After that, check the statistics information and see what causes the performance issue. My guess is that you need to build an aggregate.
If rhe Data Manager time is high (a large % of the total runtime) and the ratio of the number of records selected VS the number of records transfered is high (e.g. > 10), then try to build an aggregate to help on the performance. To check for aggregate suggestions, run RSRT again with the option "Display Aggregates Found". It will show you what characteristics and characteristics selections would help (note that the suggestion might not always be the optimal one).
If OLAP Data Transfer time is high, then try optimizing the query design (e.g. try reducing the amount of restricted KFs or try calculating some KFs during the data flow instead of calculating them in the query).
Hope this helps.

How to improve the query performance in to report level and designer level

How to improve the query performance in to report level and designer level......?
Plz let me know the detail view......

first its all based on the design of the database, universe and the report.
at the universe Level, you have to check your Contexts very well to get the optimal performance of the universe and also your joins, keep your joins with key fields, will give you the best performance.
at the report level, try to make the reports dynamic as much as you can, (Parameters) and so on.
and when you create a paremeter try to get it match with the key fields in the database.
good luck
Amr

Need Help in tuning of the query

Hi all,
Can any body help me how we can rewrite this query in
optimized way.
SELECT A.C1 AS COLUMN_1, B.C2 AS COLUMN_2
FROM A,B
WHERE A.C1 IN (
SELECT COLUMN_1 FROM(
(SELECT A.C1 AS COLUMN_1,
COUNT(C1) AS COUNT,
RANK() OVER (ORDER BY COUNT(C1) DESC) AS RANK
FROM A, B, C
WHERE A.C1 = B.C3
AND B.C2 = C.C1
AND <other conditions>
GROUP BY A.C1)
WHERE RANK <= 10)
AND A.C1 = B.C3
AND <other conditions>
ORDER BY A.C1
I am using <other conditions> are same in outer query and inner query also.
Thanks in Advance,

Hi,
Yes exactly I am looking TOP-10 results the query is like this
SELECT A.C1 AS COLUMN_1, B.C2 AS COLUMN_2
FROM A,B
WHERE B.C2 IN (
SELECT COLUMN_1 FROM(
(SELECT B.C2 AS COLUMN_1,
COUNT(A.C1) AS COUNT,
RANK() OVER (ORDER BY COUNT(C1) DESC) AS RANK
FROM A, B, C
WHERE A.C1 = B.C3
AND B.C2 = C.C1
AND <other conditions>
GROUP BY B.C2)
WHERE RANK <= 10)
AND A.C1 = B.C3
AND <other conditions>
ORDER BY B.C2
Thanks

Issue While executing the Query for Pagination using ROWNUM with like

Issue While executing the Query for Pagination using ROWNUM with like.
Database is Oracle11G.
Oracle Database Table contains 8-9 lakh records
1) SQL equal (=)
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ ROWNUM RNUM, A.* FROM LINE A
WHERE A.REFERENCE = 'KMF22600920'
Execution Time:- 0.00869245 seconds
Returns 2 resultsets
2) SQL like (one %)
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ ROWNUM RNUM, A.* FROM LINE A
WHERE A.REFERENCE = 'KMF22600920%'
Execution Time:- 0.01094301 seconds
Returns 2 resultsets
3) SQL like (two%)
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ ROWNUM RNUM, A.* FROM LINE A
WHERE A.REFERENCE like '%KMF22600920%'
Execution Time:- 6.43989658 seconds
Returns 2 resultsets
In Pagination, we are using Modified version of SQL Query 3) with ROWNUM as mentioned below :-
4) SELECT * FROM (
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ ROWNUM RNUM, A.* FROM LINE A
WHERE REFERENCE like '%KMF22600920%' AND ROWNUM <= 20 ) WHERE RNUM > 0
Execution Time:- Infinite
ResultSets:- No as execution time is infinite
a) Instead of like if we use = in the above query it is returning the 2 resultsets (execution time 0.02699282 seconds)
b) Instead of two % in the above query, if use one example REFERENCE like 'KMF22600920%' it is returning the 2 resultsets (execution time 0.03313019 seconds)
Issue:- When using two % in like in the above query i.e. REFERENCE like '%KMF22600920%' AND ROWNUM <= 20 ) , it is going to infinite.
Could you please let us know what is the issue with two % used in like and rownum
5) Modified version of Option1 query (move out the RNUM condition AND RNUM <= 20)
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ ROWNUM RNUM, A.* FROM LINE A
WHERE REFERENCE like '%KMF22600920%' ) WHERE RNUM > 0 AND RNUM <= 20
Execution Time:- 7.41368914 seconds
Returns 2 resultsets
Is the above query is best optimized query which should be used for the Pagination or still can improve on this ?

This would be easier to diagnose if there was an explain plan posted for the 'good' and 'bad' queries. Generally speaking using '%' on both sides precludes the use of any indexes.

SQL 2005 v9.0.2047 (SP1) - The query processor could not produce a query plan

Hi Everyone:
*Before* I actually call up Microsoft SQL Customer Support Services and ask them, I wanted to ping other people to see if you have ever ran into this exact error
"Internal Query Processor Error: The query processor could not produce a query plan. For more information, contact Customer Support Services."
I would have searched the forums myself, but at this moment in time, search is broken :(
If anyone has run into this error before, what conditions would exist that this could happen? That is, if I can sniff this out with suggestions from the community, I would be happy to do so.
It is an oddity because if I alter a couple subqueries in the where clause [ i.e., where tab.Col = (select val from tab2 where id='122') ]to not have subqueries [hand coded values], then the t-sql result is fine. It's not as if subqueries are oddities... I've used them when appropriate.
fwiw - Not a newbie t-sql guy. ISV working almost daily with t-sql since MS SQL 2000. I have never seen this message before...at least I don't recall ever seeing it.
Thanks in advance for other suggested examination paths.

This code also produces the error... the text is from an incident a while ago that I reported to microsoft.
--I just found a way to break the query engine. Looks like the SQL Server team missed something. I was generating phony data for test cases, by the way.
--Bad code:
DECLARE @t_Asset TABLE
(Asset_Id INT)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (1)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (2)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (3)
DECLARE @Record_id INT
,@File_id NVARCHAR(MAX)
,@SKP_Cust_id NVARCHAR(MAX)
,@Unique_Barcode NVARCHAR(MAX)
SELECT @Record_Id = (SELECT TOP 1 Asset_Id FROM @t_Asset)
, @file_id = (SELECT LEFT(REPLACE(CAST(NEWID() AS NVARCHAR(50)), '-', ''), 10))
,@Unique_Barcode=(SELECT LEFT(REPLACE(CAST(NEWID() AS NVARCHAR(50)), '-', ''), 15))
go
--Msg 8624, Level 16, State 116, Line 12
--Internal Query Processor Error: The query processor could not produce a query plan. For more information, contact Customer Support Services.
--Code that doesn’t fry the optimizing engine:
DECLARE @t_Asset TABLE
(Asset_Id INT)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (1)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (2)
INSERT INTO @t_Asset (Asset_Id) VALUES (3)
DECLARE @Record_id INT
,@File_id NVARCHAR(MAX)
,@SKP_Cust_id NVARCHAR(MAX)
,@Unique_Barcode NVARCHAR(MAX)
SELECT @Record_Id = (SELECT TOP 1 Asset_Id FROM @t_Asset)
SELECT @file_id = (SELECT LEFT(REPLACE(CAST(NEWID() AS NVARCHAR(50)), '-', ''), 10))
SELECT @Unique_Barcode=(SELECT LEFT(REPLACE(CAST(NEWID() AS NVARCHAR(50)), '-', ''), 15))

JPA/Toplink changes the query logic

Hi,
Iam currently using JPA with Toplink implementation , i guess that toplink has its own way of optimizing the provided JPA query ; on another words , toplink sometimes changes the way you are using joins and exists statement to what looks optimized , but unfor. this caused me troubles tracking a query that should work on a certain way but its not cause the generated query by Toplink ( can be captured on the log ) does not represent the same logic , is this a known issue or do i have to write my JPA query on a way on which can be translated correctly by toplink , i know i should provide the query it self , but the model structure is too complex.
Thanks in advance

Hello,
JPQL does not directly translate to SQL, so there might be some differences in what you may be expecting due to JPA requirements on the results that are returned. If there is a problem with specific queries, please let us know and file a bug if it is not behaving the way it should. A workaround would be to use a native SQL query directly.
Best Regards,
Chris

Table Sizes Optimized in Query

Hi Experts,
When I was run the query, I am not getting the data in the query but when I checked the data in the cube, the data is available there. I went RSRT there I checked the technical information in that Table Sizes Optimized is showing RED. What is this error How to solve this problem?
Thanks in Advance
Ravi.

Hi Ravi,
What was the fix for this issue ?
Appreciate your help.
Thanks

Optimizing the Query.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for