Ordering of rows are showing difference when migration db from 9.2.0.8.0-32bits(windows 3) to 10.2.0.5.0 - 64bit(windows 8)?

Question

Dears,
After migration(via export/import), we are facing ordering of rows are mis-match  in these two databases.
the following same query I am running on the these two databases. but different output. output are below.
[CODE]
SELECT ROWNUM AS RowNo, TBL1.*
  FROM (    SELECT COUNT (PG_ID) AS TotalCount,
                 PG_DESC AS PageDescription,
                 CURR_EPR_QUEUE AS CurrentQueue,
                 PG_NME AS PageName,
                 QUEUE_TYP_CDE AS QueueTypeCode,
                 PG_ID AS PageID
            FROM SASV_TB_CNT_APPL_JUDG_2----this is a view
           WHERE (CURR_EPR_QUEUE = 'test' AND QUEUE_TYP_CDE = '01')
                 OR (    JUD_RACIF_ID = 'test'
                     AND CMPLTD_IND = '0'
                     AND DSPLY_IND = '1')
                    AND TOTAL_CNT > 0
        GROUP BY PG_ID,
                 PG_NME,
                 PG_DESC,
                 CURR_EPR_QUEUE,
                 QUEUE_TYP_CDE            
                  ) TBL1
[/CODE]
output- from
Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.8.0 - Production
TNS for 32-bit Windows: Version 9.2.0.8.0 - Production
1
7
Other Documents(Hearing)
askinj
HG01_Other_Documents
1
HG01-TB02
2
3
Pending Award
askinj
HG01_Pending_Order
1
HG01-TB05
3
19
Motion(ADR)
askinj
MD01_Motion
1
MD01-TB01
4
5
Other Documents(ADR)
askinj
MD02_Other_Documents
1
MD01-TB02
5
1
Scheduling(ADR)
askinj
MD01_Scheduling
1
MD01-TB03
6
8
Mediations
askinj
MD01_Mediations
1
MD01-TB04
output from--
Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.5.0 - 64bi
TNS for 64-bit Windows: Version 10.2.0.5.0 - Production
1
3
  Pending Award
askinj
HG01_Pending_Order
1
HG01-TB05
2
7
  Other   Documents(Hearing)
askinj
HG01_Other_Documents
1
HG01-TB02
3
8
  Mediations
askinj
MD01_Mediations
1
MD01-TB04
4
5
Other Documents(ADR)
askinj
MD02_Other_Documents
1
MD01-TB02
5
1
Scheduling(ADR)
askinj
MD01_Scheduling
1
MD01-TB03
6
19
Motion(ADR)
askinj
MD01_Motion
1
MD01-TB01
the views query is below
SASV_TB_CNT_APPL_JUDG_2
[code]
(SELECT spm.PG_ID,
           spm.PG_NME,
           spm.PG_DESC,
           DECODE (TAJD.ABS_IND, 1, GUEST_JUD_ID, JUDG_ID) CURR_EPR_QUEUE,
           QUEUE_TYP_CDE,
           1 "TOTAL_CNT",
           DECODE (TAJD.ABS_IND, 1, GUEST_JUD_ID, JUDG_ID) JUD_RACIF_ID,
           CMLTD_IND CMPLTD_IND,
           NULL DSPLY_IND
      FROM SA_PG_MSTR SPM, TMST_APPEAL_JUDGE_DETAIL TAJD, SA_WRK_ITM SWI
     WHERE     SWI.WRK_ITM_ID = TAJD.WRK_ITM_ID
           AND swi.tb_pg_id = spm.pg_id
           AND SWI.CURR_EPR_QUEUE = 'AppellateCommonJudgeUser'
           AND CMLTD_IND = '0'
           AND tajd.LEAD_JUD_IND != '3'
    UNION ALL
    SELECT spm.PG_ID,
           spm.PG_NME,
           spm.PG_DESC,
           CURR_EPR_QUEUE,
           QUEUE_TYP_CDE,
           1 "TOTAL_CNT",
           CURR_EPR_QUEUE judg_racif_id,
           '0' CMPLTD_IND,
           NULL DSPLY_IND
      FROM SA_PG_MSTR spm, SA_WRK_ITM SWI
     WHERE SCCS_IND = '1' AND SWI.ACTIVE = '1' AND spm.pg_id = swi.tb_pg_id
    UNION ALL
    SELECT spm.PG_ID,
           spm.PG_NME,
           spm.PG_DESC,
           CURR_EPR_QUEUE,
           QUEUE_TYP_CDE,
           1 "TOTAL_CNT",
           JUD_RACIF_ID,
           CMPLTD_IND,
           DSPLY_IND
      FROM ST_WRK_ITM_JUD_DTL SWIJD, SA_WRK_ITM SWI, SA_PG_MSTR spm
     WHERE     SWI.WRK_ITM_ID = SWIJD.WRK_ITM_ID
           AND swi.tb_pg_id = spm.pg_id
           AND swi.queue_typ_cde IN ('01', '05')
           AND swi.dup_ind <> 1);
[code]
parameters in 9i are belows
[code]
aq_tm_processes    1
background_dump_dest    D:\oracle\admin\TEST\bdump
compatible    9.2.0.0.0
cursor_sharing    similar
db_block_size    8192
db_cache_size    947912704
db_domain
db_file_multiblock_read_count    16
db_keep_cache_size    167772160
db_name    TEST
fast_start_mttr_target    300
hash_area_size    1073741824
hash_join_enabled    TRUE
instance_name    TEST
java_pool_size    67108864
job_queue_processes    10
large_pool_size    109051904
local_listener    (ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=TCP)(HOST=192.168.2.51)(PORT=1521))
log_archive_format    %t_%s.dbf
log_archive_start    TRUE
log_buffer    26214400
open_cursors    700
optimizer_index_caching    80
optimizer_index_cost_adj    20
optimizer_mode    FIRST_ROWS
pga_aggregate_target    1468006400
processes    800
query_rewrite_enabled    TRUE
remote_login_passwordfile    EXCLUSIVE
session_cached_cursors    400
sga_max_size    2149134244
shared_pool_size    788529152
sort_area_size    1073741824
star_transformation_enabled    FALSE
timed_statistics    TRUE
undo_management    AUTO
undo_retention    10800
undo_tablespace    UNDOTBS1
utl_file_dir    H:\ICMS_TO_GO
workarea_size_policy    AUTO
[code]
parameters in 10 are belows
[code]
aq_tm_processes    1
compatible    10.2.0.5.0
db_block_size    8192
db_domain
db_file_multiblock_read_count    16
db_name    TEST
db_recovery_file_dest    C:\oracle/flash_recovery_area
db_recovery_file_dest_size    171798691840
dispatchers    (PROTOCOL=TCP) (SERVICE=TESTXDB)
job_queue_processes    10
log_archive_format    ARC%S_%R.%T
open_cursors    800
open_links    10
open_links_per_instance    10
pga_aggregate_target    3984588800
processes    1200
recyclebin    OFF
remote_login_passwordfile    EXCLUSIVE
session_cached_cursors    400
sessions    1325
sga_max_size    10485760000
sga_target    10485760000
undo_management    AUTO
undo_tablespace    UNDOTBS1
utl_file_dir    H:\ICMS_TO_GO
optimizer_dynamic_sampling    2
optimizer_features_enable    10.2.0.5
optimizer_index_caching    80
optimizer_index_cost_adj    20
optimizer_mode    FIRST_ROWS
optimizer_secure_view_merging    FALSE
plsql_optimize_level    2
[code]
where can we look into for this issue? actually we need rows will be the same ordering as it was in 9i.
we are facing this problem in lot of queries, this is a sample one.
Regards
Halim

Answer 1

Hi Jgarry,
why do you need a particular physical order?
Actually i don't know the .net application behave or code yet . but after migration, I am facing this issue.
one more thing we changed the server machine so Is there any registry parameter (in windows) related to this. Have you any idea.
the application is running since 8 years and I think nobody can rely on implicit data distribution arising from how the data is entered to develop a application.
Hi Hoek,
According to Oracle White Paper(page 17), If I change below parameter. Is there any hope to get same order.
"After you upgrade to Oracle Database 10g, if you
wanted to revert back to 9.2 optimizer behavior you can set
OPTIMIZER_FEATURES_ENABLE = 9.2.0 "
Regards
Halim