Order by Clause is slow

Guys,
I have a table of 80,000 records.If i select * from this table need 0.04 seconds.If I add order by clause it become very slow 30 sec.
Order by clause is on the primary key.Also i increased the size of temp tablespace.
Kindly assist

In Forms, LOV's are meant for a small set of values.
For a table containing 80,000 records you need to develop a small selection form, i.e. a separate form in which you can search for values and select one value. Details for this can be acquired in the Oracle*Forms Forum. A form will typically fetch only a few rows and is therefore more suited in this case. Be sure to check the block properties "Query Array Size", "Number of Records Buffered" and "Query All Records".
At my shop we use a standard of approximately 20 values. Below this number a LOV can be used and above a select form is recommended.
Regards,
Rob.

Similar Messages

Order By Clause - Slows performance

On 10.2 when adding an order by clause to a query affects performance that returns 6 rows of data.
Before:
select distinct col1
from table1
Cost: 3,000
Execution Time: less than a second
Chooses: Bitmap Index Fast Full Scan Index (BitMap)
After:
select distinct col1
from table1
order by col1
Cost: 14,000
Execution time: 90 seconds
Chooses: Full TableScan
Any ideas as to why the order by causes the slow down ?
Thanks,

Venzi wrote:
Now you add the order by clause to it and Oracle has now to do a sort on it. It can't sort on the BITMAP index in that case so it has to go to the table. It is possible for Oracle to do the order by through the bitmap index - the reason it doesn't is probably down to arithmetic. (The situation is made a little messier by the fact that the table and index have been parallel enabled). Here's a plan from 10.2.0.3 showing the "order by" query running through the bitmap index:
| Id | Operation                          | Name     | Rows | Bytes | Cost |    TQ |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                   |          |     6 |    18 |   356 |        |      |            |
|   1 | PX COORDINATOR                    |          |       |       |       |        |      |            |
|   2 |   PX SEND QC (ORDER)               | :TQ10001 |     6 |    18 |   356 | Q1,01 | P->S | QC (ORDER) |
|   3 |    SORT GROUP BY                   |          |     6 |    18 |   356 | Q1,01 | PCWP |            |
|   4 |     PX RECEIVE                     |          | 2000K| 5859K|    63 | Q1,01 | PCWP |            |
|   5 |      PX SEND RANGE                 | :TQ10000 | 2000K| 5859K|    63 | Q1,00 | P->P | RANGE      |
|   6 |       PX BLOCK ITERATOR            |          | 2000K| 5859K|    63 | Q1,00 | PCWC |            |
|   7 |        BITMAP CONVERSION TO ROWIDS |          | 2000K| 5859K|    63 | Q1,00 | PCWP |            |
|   8 |         BITMAP INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| T1_B1    |       |       |       | Q1,00 | PCWP |            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note how the optimizer can recognise that the "group by" operation will allow it to avoid an explicit "order by" operation, and uses the "(ORDER)" distribution to pass the data to the Query Coordinator to enforce correct ordering.
Running up a test case with a couple of million rows, it looks like the underlying problem the OP has is that the CBO bypasses a few of the execution options in this particular case when parallel execution is possible. (I had to hint this plan - the default plan was a serial full scan of the index that allowed the optimizer to bypass the "sort order" because of a "sort unique", but the cost was much higher than this parallel plan - see below).
| Id | Operation               | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT        |       |     6 |    18 | 2269 |
|   1 | SORT UNIQUE NOSORT     |       |     6 |    18 | 2269 |
|   2 |   BITMAP INDEX FULL SCAN| T1_B1 | 2000K| 5859K|   278 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
To post code, statspack/AWR report, execution plans or trace files, start and end the section with the tag {noformat}{noformat} (lowercase, curly brackets, no spaces) so that the text appears in fixed format.
There is a +"Preview"+ tab at the top of the text entry panel. Use this to check what your message will look like before you post the message. If it looks a complete mess you're unlikely to get a response. (Click on the +"Plain text"+ tab if you want to edit the text to tidy it up.)
+"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."+
Isaac Asimov

Slow SQL output when table alias is NOT used in order by clause

Hi guys,
My query is based on Oracle 9208
I have a table TAB1 with 68000 records with transaction_id as the primary key in this table (unique index).
I have another TAB2 with the same number of records again with transaction_id in this table (foreign key to above).
I have the below query that gets executed via an application:-
SELECT TO_CHAR(V1.TRANSACTION_ID), V1.POLICY_ID, V1.REQUEST_TYPE
FROM <VIEW> V1 WHERE V1.CERT_SERIAL_NUM=56192 AND
(V1.AUTH_GROUP_ID=0 OR V1.AUTH_GROUP_ID=1) AND ROWNUM <= 3 ORDER
BY TRANSACTION_ID ASC
The above view V1 is created as below:-
CREATE OR REPLACE FORCE VIEW "V1"
("TRANSACTION_ID",
"PARENT_TRANSACTION_ID",
"CA_DN_ID",
"AUTH_GROUP_ID",
"POLICY_ID",
"REQUEST_TYPE",
"REQUEST_STATUS",
"EE_DN_HASH",
"EE_DN",
"EE_EMAIL_HASH",
"EE_EMAIL",
"KEY_USAGE",
"SMART_CARD_SERIAL",
"CERT_TYPE",
"CERT_SERIAL_NUM",
"CERT_INDEX",
"RENEWAL_FLAG",
"ARCHIVE_FLAG",
"TIME_RECEIVED",
"DOWNLOADED",
"REQUEST_DATA",
"ACTION",
"STEP_NUM")
AS
SELECT
T1.transaction_id,
T1.parent_transaction_id,
T1.ca_dn_id,
V2.auth_group_id,
V2.policy_id,
T1.request_type,
T1.request_status,
T2.ee_dn_hash,
T2.ee_dn,
T2.ee_email_hash,
T2.ee_email,
T2.key_usage,
T2.smart_card_serial,
T2.cert_type,
T2.cert_serial_num,
T2.cert_index,
T2.renewal_flag,
T2.archive_flag,
T1.time_received,
T1.downloaded,
T1.request_data,
V2.action,
V2.step_num
FROM TAB1
<ANOTHER VIEW> V2,
TAB2 T1,
TAB2 T2
WHERE
T1.transaction_id = T2.transaction_id
AND
V2.policy_id = T1.policy_id
order by transaction_id;
The query at the top runs within milliseconds if the VIEW is created as :-
order by t2.transaction_id
But without the alias "t2" in the order by, the query takes about 1 1/2 minutes
Can you tell me why? I thought if you ordering by primary key (lesser number of values compared to foreign key values), the query should be faster..no?
Thanks in advance

Thanks for keeping up with this issue Hemant.
Here are the plans for each case.
I would be very interested in how you'd recognize which plan is the best and what are the derivatives.
I don't much (or rather anything!) what is 'card' values, 'cost' values etc which I believe are used to decide the best plan of the lot.
Thanks again
Note TAB1 and TAB2 are from view definition posted initially
1) Execution Plan for VIEW1 <<-- With ORDER BY" clause but no table ailas (order by transaction_id)
SQL> EXPLAIN PLAN FOR SELECT TO_CHAR(QT.TRANSACTION_ID), QT.POLICY_ID, QT.REQUEST_TYPE
2 FROM <VIEW1> QT WHERE QT.CERT_SERIAL_NUM=24293 AND
3 (QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=0 OR QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=1) AND ROWNUM <= 3 ORDER
4 BY TRANSACTION_ID ASC
5 /
Explained.
Elapsed: 00:00:01.00
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 3 | 195 | 17 |
|* 1 | COUNT STOPKEY | | | | |
| 2 | VIEW | VIEW1 | 17 | 1105 | 17 |
|* 3 | SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY | | 17 | 38573 | 17 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 17 | 38573 | 10 |
| 5 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 1 | 167 | 9 |
| 6 | VIEW | VIEW2 | 1 | 52 | 8 |
| 7 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 156 | 8 |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 156 | 6 |
| 9 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 143 | 6 |
| 10 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 117 | 5 |
|* 11 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 104 | 5 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
|* 13 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB3 | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 14 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB4) | 1 | 13 | |
| 15 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB5 | 82 | 4264 | 2 |
| 16 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | View3 | 1 | 13 | |
| 17 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
| 18 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 19 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB6) | 1 | 13 | 1 |
|* 20 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | (PK_TAB7) | 1 | 26 | 1 |
|* 21 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB8) | 1 | 13 | |
| 22 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAB9 | 3 | 78 | 1 |
|* 23 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB9) | 1 | | |
|* 24 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB10)| 1 | 13 | |
| 25 | BUFFER SORT | | 1 | 115 | 9 |
| 26 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB2 | 1 | 115 | 1 |
|* 27 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | (TAB2_IDX2)| 1 | | |
|* 28 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB1 | 12 | 25224 | 1 |
|* 29 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB1) | 1 | | |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter(ROWNUM<=3)
3 - filter(ROWNUM<=3)
11 - access("TAB5"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
13 - filter("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"<>(-1) AND ("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=0 OR "TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=1))
14 - access("TAB3"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
19 - access("TAB5"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID")
20 - access("TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB7"."DOMAIN_ID")
21 - access("TAB7"."RULE_ID"="TAB8"."RULE_ID")
23 - access("TAB9"."POLICY_ID"="TAB5"."POLICY_ID")
24 - access("TAB9"."ASSOCIATED_FORM_ID"="TAB10"."FORM_ID")
27 - access("TAB2"."CERT_SERIAL_NUM"=24293)
28 - filter("View2"."POLICY_ID"="TAB1"."POLICY_ID")
29 - access("TAB1"."TRANSACTION_ID"="TAB2"."TRANSACTION_ID")
Note: cpu costing is off
54 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:01.81
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE
1 0 COLLECTION ITERATOR (PICKLER FETCH) OF 'DISPLAY'
Statistics
39 recursive calls
0 db block gets
629 consistent gets
0 physical reads
104 redo size
5169 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
405 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
5 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
31 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
54 rows processed
2) Execution Plan for VIEW1 <<-- With ORDER BY" clause and table alias (order by TAB2.transaction_id)
SQL> explain plan for SELECT TO_CHAR(QT.TRANSACTION_ID), QT.POLICY_ID, QT.REQUEST_TYPE
2 FROM <VIEW1> QT WHERE QT.CERT_SERIAL_NUM=30003 AND
3 (QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=0 OR QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=1) AND ROWNUM <= 3 ORDER
4 BY TRANSACTION_ID ASC
5 /
Explained.
Elapsed: 00:00:10.20
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 3 | 195 | 14 |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 3 | 195 | 14 |
|* 2 | COUNT STOPKEY | | | | |
| 3 | VIEW | VIEW1 | 17 | 1105 | 13 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 17 | 38573 | 13 |
| 5 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 1 | 167 | 12 |
|* 6 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB2 | 1 | 115 | 4 |
| 7 | INDEX FULL SCAN | (TAB2_IDX) | 94 | | 1 |
| 8 | BUFFER SORT | | 1 | 52 | 8 |
| 9 | VIEW | VIEW2 | 1 | 52 | 8 |
| 10 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 156 | 8 |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 156 | 6 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 143 | 6 |
| 13 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 117 | 5 |
|* 14 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 104 | 5 |
| 15 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
|* 16 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB3 | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 17 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB4) | 1 | 13 | |
| 18 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB5 | 82 | 4264 | 2 |
| 19 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | View3 | 1 | 13 | |
| 20 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
| 21 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 22 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB6) | 1 | 13 | 1 |
|* 23 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | (PK_TAB7) | 1 | 26 | 1 |
|* 24 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB8) | 1 | 13 | |
| 25 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAB9 | 3 | 78 | 1 |
|* 26 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB9) | 1 | | |
|* 27 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB10) | 1 | 13 | |
|* 28 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB1 | 12 | 25224 | 1 |
|* 29 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | (PK_TAB1) | 1 | | |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter(ROWNUM<=3)
6 - filter("TAB2"."CERT_SERIAL_NUM"=30003)
14 - access("TAB5"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
16 - filter("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"<>(-1) AND ("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=0 OR "TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=1))
17 - access("TAB3"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
22 - access("TAB5"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID")
23 - access("TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB7"."DOMAIN_ID")
24 - access("TAB7"."RULE_ID"="TAB8"."RULE_ID")
26 - access("TAB9"."POLICY_ID"="TAB5"."POLICY_ID")
27 - access("TAB9"."ASSOCIATED_FORM_ID"="TAB10"."FORM_ID")
28 - filter("VIEW2"."POLICY_ID"="TAB1"."POLICY_ID")
29 - access("TAB1"."TRANSACTION_ID"="TAB2"."TRANSACTION_ID")
Note: cpu costing is off
53 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:08.29
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE
1 0 COLLECTION ITERATOR (PICKLER FETCH) OF 'DISPLAY'
Statistics
1079 recursive calls
0 db block gets
597 consistent gets
21 physical reads
0 redo size
5177 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
405 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
5 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
63 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
53 rows processed
3) Execution Plan for VIEW1 <<-- Without any "ORDER BY" clause
SQL> explain plan for SELECT TO_CHAR(QT.TRANSACTION_ID), QT.POLICY_ID, QT.REQUEST_TYPE
2 FROM <VIEW1> QT WHERE QT.CERT_SERIAL_NUM=30003 AND
3 (QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=0 OR QT.AUTH_GROUP_ID=1) AND ROWNUM <= 3 ORDER
4 BY TRANSACTION_ID ASC
5 /
Explained.
Elapsed: 00:00:10.20
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 3 | 213 | 11 |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 3 | 213 | 11 |
|* 2 | COUNT STOPKEY | | | | |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 17 | 1207 | 10 |
| 4 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 1 | 32 | 9 |
| 5 | VIEW | VIEW2 | 1 | 26 | 8 |
| 6 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 156 | 8 |
| 7 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 156 | 6 |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 143 | 6 |
| 9 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 117 | 5 |
|* 10 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 104 | 5 |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
|* 12 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB3 | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 13 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB4 | 1 | 13 | |
| 14 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB5 | 82 | 4264 | 2 |
| 15 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | VIEW3 | 1 | 13 | |
| 16 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 52 | 2 |
| 17 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 39 | 2 |
|* 18 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB6 | 1 | 13 | 1 |
|* 19 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | PK_TAB7 | 1 | 26 | 1 |
|* 20 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB8 | 1 | 13 | |
| 21 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAB9 | 3 | 78 | 1 |
|* 22 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB9 | 1 | | |
|* 23 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB10 | 1 | 13 | |
| 24 | BUFFER SORT | | 1 | 6 | 9 |
| 25 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB2 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
|* 26 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TAB2_IDX2 | 1 | | |
|* 27 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAB1 | 12 | 468 | 1 |
|* 28 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAB1 | 1 | | |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter(ROWNUM<=3)
10 - access("TAB5"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
12 - filter("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"<>(-1) AND ("TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=0 OR "TAB3"."AUTH_GROUP_ID"=1))
13 - access("TAB3"."PATH_ID"="TAB4"."PATH_ID")
18 - access("TAB5"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID")
19 - access("TAB6"."DOMAIN_ID"="TAB7"."DOMAIN_ID")
20 - access("TAB7"."RULE_ID"="TAB8"."RULE_ID")
22 - access("TAB9"."POLICY_ID"="TAB5"."POLICY_ID")
23 - access("TAB9"."ASSOCIATED_FORM_ID"="TAB10"."FORM_ID")
26 - access("TAB2"."CERT_SERIAL_NUM"=1022)
27 - filter("VIEW2"."POLICY_ID"="TAB1"."POLICY_ID")
28 - access("TAB1"."TRANSACTION_ID"="TAB2"."TRANSACTION_ID")
Note: cpu costing is off
52 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:03.37
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE
1 0 COLLECTION ITERATOR (PICKLER FETCH) OF 'DISPLAY'
Statistics
38 recursive calls
0 db block gets
287 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
5006 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
405 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
5 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
29 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
52 rows processed

Order by clause not working

Hi, everyone,
I am trying to use the following insert statement to insert records in asc order. if i use the select statement alone the order by clause works fine, but when i use the same sql and add a insert into table statment the order by clause does not work. I am not getting the records in ascending order. could anybody help me in this regard?
INSERT INTO cat_sales_stg
select      b.SSC,
     ltrim(rtrim(a.CAT_DESC)) cat_desc,
     SUM(a.AMOUNT) AMOUNT
FROM Trans a, SSC b
WHERE a.ACCOUNT_NUMBER = TO_CHAR(b.ACCOUNT_NUMBER)
     AND a.TMONTH >= 200905 AND a.TMONTH <= 200910
     AND a.FORMAT_NAME = 'ABC'
     AND b.BMONTH = 200910
     AND b.SAMPLE = 3
     AND b.BANNER_NAME = 'ABC'
     AND b.MODEL_NAME = 'XYZ'
group by b.SSC, ltrim(rtrim(a.CAT_DESC))
order by ssc,cat_desc
Thanks in advance

user10636796 wrote:
Hi, everyone,
I am trying to use the following insert statement to insert records in asc orderWhat Toon, William, and others have said is that you DON'T insert rows in a specific order. That is completely outside the way relational databases are designed. You insert rows as unordered and use an ORDER BY clause in a SELECT when reading them. ORDER BY is for SELECT statements, not INSERT.
In particular Toon poined out that we can't control where individual rows get stored.
There is a databas object called a varray that can store data in sorted order. I have never seen them used because selecting the data back out again is more work; using an ordinary table and an ORDER BY clause is much easier.

Suppress "Order By" clause in Answers Query

Hello,
Is it possible to Suppress "Order By" clause in Answers Query.
I'm using a database view as data source. In the view definition, "order by" clause is already specified. Is it possible to get the same order in the OBIEE report??
I do not want to use Sort Order column in the repository.
Thanks,
Girish

You add a rownumber to your DB view and use that to 'sort' your report.
regards
John
http://obiee101.blogspot.com/

How to make an ORDER BY clause dynamic

is there anyway to make the ORDER BY clause in an SQL query within a DB control
dynamic? I have tried to pass a String of the column name and place it in the
statement within {}, but it doesn't work

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
is there anyway to make the ORDER BY clause in an SQL query within a
DB control
dynamic? I have tried to pass a String of the column name and place
it in the
statement within {}, but it doesn't workDid you find how ? please let me know, I also need to have a dynamic order by
clause.

In Report,order by clause is not working

Hi All,
For the report i prepared the query in this one am using the order by clause,i run the query in the sql plus working fine am getting the data based on the order by clause.when i use the same query for the report am getting the data but not in the order(i.e order by clause in not working).
Please help me how to do this one.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Leelakrishna.G

Hi Dora,
Data is coming in the proper sequence,but in the first group data is not coming(In first group data first line only displaying,remaining data is not comming).
My req is:
The report is executing based on the creation date(i.e.,from creation date to today).
In this so many Purchase requisitions will be there for this one different approval in different times will be there.
For Ex:
we will take 2 PR number only(for the first one 3 approvals,second one 4 levels of approval).
1. one supplier 1person raised by 1PR submit
No Action
Approve
2. 2Supplier 2personraised by 2PR Submit
NO Action
Forword
Approve
with ur suggestion am trying data is gettin fine but first group first line is coming remaining data is not coing.
EX:
1. one supplier 1person raised by 1PR submit
No Action
Approve
2PR Submit
NO Action
Forword
Approve
Note:"2. 2Supplier 2personraised by " this kind of lines data is missing.
Can you pls check and suggest me how i can do this.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Leelakrishna.G

Error : The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived

Hi All,
I am on 11g 6.2, Windows Server 2008, my db SQL server 2008, I am facing the error for the reports in which I am trying to edit one the column formula and do something like 'abc/sum(abc)*100'.
10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 43119] Query Failed: [nQSError: 16001] ODBC error state: 37000 code: 8180 message: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Statement(s) could not be prepared.. [nQSError: 16001] ODBC error state: 37000 code: 1033 message: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified.. [nQSError: 16002] Cannot obtain number of columns for the query result. (HY000)
One of the solutions to this which I have found is to edit the EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED feature in the db properties.
I want to know what does EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED means?
When I create a calculations in 11g like abc/sum(abc) in the column formula for a column then i get this error.
What does this error mean? Does OBIEE 11g doesn't support using these expressions in the report and the fact that it applies the order by clause to the reports, the report fail?
Could anybody please explain the issue. There is very limited information on this over the web.
Thanks in advance.
Ronny

Thanks svee for the quick response, actually i had resolved the issue by unchecking the EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED option in the database. I want to understand how does that makes the difference?
What does EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED mean? Does it mean that if I give any expression in my answers report and since obiee uses a order by for all the queries, the expression won't be supported?
Please explain.

Order by clause in cursor problem

Hello,
I'm unable to compile package body when i'm using order by clause in cursor subquery in stored procedure.
Sample code:
CREATE PACKAGE Announces AS
TYPE tRefCur IS REF CURSOR;
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT tRefCur,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
END Announces;
CREATE PACKAGE BODY Announces AS
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT NUMBER,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
AS
BEGIN
OPEN osAnnounces FOR
SELECT Id, Name, AnnCount FROM
SELECT Id, Name, COUNT(CategoryId) AS AnnCount FROM tblAnnounces
GROUP BY Id, Name
-- bellow is the line, where the code crash
ORDER BY AnnCount DESC
WHERE ROWNUM < iiCount + 1;
oiRetVal := 0;
EXCEPTION
WHEN OTHERS THEN
oiRetVal := -255;
END TopAnnounces;
END Announces;
If I compile the code above I will get this error:
PLS-00103: Encoutered the symbol "ORDER" when expecting on of the following:
After I remark the problematic line, the compilation is successful (but not the result :).
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for advice
Vojtech Novacek
null

Sorry you can not use order by clause into one temporal table created by subquery.
Put the order by clause offside of subquery.
Atte.
CC.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vojtech Novacek:
Hello,
I'm unable to compile package body when i'm using order by clause in cursor subquery in stored procedure.
Sample code:
CREATE PACKAGE Announces AS
TYPE tRefCur IS REF CURSOR;
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT tRefCur,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
END Announces;
CREATE PACKAGE BODY Announces AS
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT NUMBER,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
AS
BEGIN
OPEN osAnnounces FOR
SELECT Id, Name, AnnCount FROM
SELECT Id, Name, COUNT(CategoryId) AS AnnCount FROM tblAnnounces
GROUP BY Id, Name
-- bellow is the line, where the code crash
ORDER BY AnnCount DESC
WHERE ROWNUM < iiCount + 1;
oiRetVal := 0;
EXCEPTION
WHEN OTHERS THEN
oiRetVal := -255;
END TopAnnounces;
END Announces;
If I compile the code above I will get this error:
PLS-00103: Encoutered the symbol "ORDER" when expecting on of the following:
After I remark the problematic line, the compilation is successful (but not the result :).
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for advice
Vojtech Novacek<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
null

Order By clause in Receiver JDBC adapter

Hello All,
Is it possible to construct a select statement that uses an Order by clause in JDBC receiver adapter?
ex : I would like the JDBC adapter to from a query as follows:
<b>Select * from EMP where sal = 10000 order by empid</b>
We are able to construct the select statement without order by clause but not with it.
Can any one suggest me how to do it. This is bit urgent for us.
Thanks
Abinash

hi,
did you try with
SQL_DML
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/2e/96fd3f2d14e869e10000000a155106/content.htm
Regards,
michal

Order by clause with union

Hi,
I wanted to know if this is possible with order by clause and union. some how union messes up the ordering of the left part of the union statement.
assume the data is as below in table tab1
c1 c2
4 1
4 2
5 1
5 2
7 1
7 2
8 3
9 4
the expected output must be for all c1 < 7 ordering must be on c1 and for all c1 > 7 ordering must be on c2.
so the query i tried was
select c1,c2 from tab1 where c1 <7 order by c1
union
select c1,c2 from tab1 where c1 >=7 order by c2
it is giving the message 'Sql command not properly ended'.
Suggestions are welcome

SQL>
SQL> With t As
2 (
3 Select 4 c1, 1 c2 From dual Union All
4 Select 4 ,2       From dual Union All
5 Select 5 ,1       From dual Union All
6 Select 5 ,2       From dual Union All
7 Select 7 ,1       From dual Union All
8 Select 7 ,2       From dual Union All
9 Select 8 ,3       From dual Union All
10 Select 9 ,4       From dual
11 ), t1 As (Select c1,c2 From t Where c1 <7 Order By c1)
12 ,t2 As (select c1,c2 from t where c1 >=7 Order By c2)
13 Select * From t1 Union All
14 Select * From t2;
        C1         C2
         4          1
         4          2
         5          1
         5          2
         7          1
         7          2
         8          3
         9          4
8 rows selected
SQL> /*-- Union All
2   select c1,c2 from t where c1 >=7
3   Order By c1,c2;
4 */
5
with union clause order by must be placed in the end,,
select c1 from dual union all
select c2 from dual
order by c1

Order by clause with Named Query

hi
i have to give order by clause in Named Query
how we have to specify is can any body help
thanks
Harish

Assuming an Entity called Handset:
select h from Handset h order by h.description

Order by clause in PL/SQL cursors

I am trying to execute a procedure with some input parameters. I open a cursor
with a select statement. However, the order by clause in the query does not
recognize parameter sent through the procedure input parameters.
For example:
open <<cursor name>> for
select id from member order by <<dynamic parameter>>" does not work (Compiles fine but does not return the right result).
But if I try and give a static order by <<column name>> it works. Is the
order by clause in the PL/SQL a compile time phenomenon?
I have also tried it through dynamic sql. All the other parameters work except the order by <<parameter>> asc|desc
Also "asc" and "desc" does not work if given dynamically.
What alternatives do I have?
null

I don't think order by can be dynamic in a cursor, but it sure can be using dynamic sql. The only issue is that you must do a replace in the sql string with the dynamic variable. For example:
create or replace procedure test_dyn(p_col in varchar2, p_order in varchar2) as
q varchar2(500);
u_exec_cur number;
u_columnnumber NUMBER;
u_columndate DATE;
u_columnvarchar varchar2(50);
u_cur_count number;
u_ename varchar2(20);
u_sal number;
begin
q := 'select ename, sal from scott.emp order by p_col p_order';
-- got to do these two replaces
q:= replace(q,'p_col',p_col);
q:= replace(q,'p_order',p_order);
u_exec_cur := dbms_sql.open_cursor;
dbms_sql.parse(u_exec_cur,q,dbms_sql.v7);
dbms_sql.define_column(u_exec_cur, 1, u_columnvarchar, 20);
dbms_sql.define_column(u_exec_cur, 2, u_columnnumber);
u_cur_count := dbms_sql.execute(u_exec_cur);
loop
exit when (dbms_sql.fetch_rows(u_exec_cur) <= 0);
dbms_sql.column_value(u_exec_cur, 1, u_ename);
dbms_sql.column_value(u_exec_cur, 2, u_sal);
dbms_output.put_line(u_ename);
dbms_output.put_line(u_sail);
--htp.p(u_ename);
--htp.p(u_sal);
end loop;
end;
show errors;
Now when when I execute my procedure I can change the order by clause all I want, for example:
SQL> set serveroutput on;
SQL> exec gmika.test_dyn('sal','asc');
SMITH
800
ADAMS
1100
WARD
1250
MARTIN
1250
MILLER
1300
TURNER
1500
ALLEN
1600
JLO
2222
BLAKE
2850
JONES
2975
SCOTT
3000
FORD
3000
LOKITZ
4500
KING
5000
JAMES
5151
JAMES
5555
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL>
null

Order by clause in Sub query

Hi,
Can we use order by clause in Sub query?
While using the order by clause, I am getting the "missing expression error" . If I remove order by clause query executing fine.
Here is my query:
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in(select
emp_no
from emp_mstr
order by branch_no);
Thanks & Regards,
Mahi

May be you miss some required spaces also, other than wrong use of ORDER BY
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in
     ( select e2.emp_no
       from emp_mstr e2
--       order by e2.branch_no
     );Why do you want to ORDER BY in the subquery, which you use with IN clause? That will not make any difference in the result..Means the result you get with ORDER BY will be same as without that.. And in this case, ORDER by is a unncessary overhead.. And Ordering is very costly..
And why do you want to have the IN clause at all in your query? You are referring the same tables in the main query and sub query..
The below will give the same result
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no is not nullIf you want to use another table in the subquery, always use aliasess...
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in
     ( select e2.emp_no
       from emp_mstr2 e2
--       order by e2.branch_no
     );

Order By Clause in View

Hi,
I have a doubt regarding Order By Clause in Views.
As per my knowledge, we can't put an order by clause in the subquery that defines view. But when i created a view in Oracle 9i with the order by clause, view got created.
Please see the my view code below :
create or replace view testview
as select * from employees
order by 1,2;
Could anyone please confirm that we can have order by clause in Views in oracle 9i?
Thanks,
Tandra

According to the SQL Reference doc, there is no such restriction for a non-updatable view:
The view subquery cannot select the CURRVAL or NEXTVAL pseudocolumns.
If the view subquery selects the ROWID, ROWNUM, or LEVEL pseudocolumns, those columns must have aliases in the view subquery.
If the view subquery uses an asterisk (*) to select all columns of a table, and you later add new columns to the table, the view will not contain those columns until you re-create the view by issuing a CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW statement.
For object views, the number of elements in the view subquery select list must be the same as the number of top-level attributes for the object type. The datatype of each of the selecting elements must be the same as the corresponding top-level attribute.
You cannot specify the SAMPLE clause.
This restriction exists only for updatable views:
If you want the view to be inherently updatable, it must not contain any of the following constructs:
A set operator
A DISTINCT operator
An aggregate or analytic function
A GROUP BY, ORDER BY, CONNECT BY, or START WITH clause
A collection expression in a SELECT list
A subquery in a SELECT list
Joins (with some exceptions as described in the paragraphs that follow).

Order by Clause is slow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for