Performance with order by clause

Dear all,
please find the below query .if i executed without order by it is going to execute with in 2 sec.if i add order by clause
it is taking more than 2 min.as per the business we need order by clause .plaese suggest me.it's very urgent.
SELECT "FACILITY_ID","VESSEL_NAME","CLASS_NUM","SURVEY_REPORT_NO","IMO_NUMBER","VESSEL_TYPE","VESSEL_TYPE_ID","PRIMARY_BUILDER","BUILDER_ID","REGISTER_OWNER","ABS_SURVEY_STATUS_ID","ABS_SURVEY_STATUS_DATE","NOT_ASSIGNED_SINCE","NO_OF_FINDINGS","CASE","SPM_ITM_CAT_NAME","LEAST_CONFIDENCE" FROM (SELECT
V. FACILITY_ID,
v.vessel_name,
v.class_num,
ASR.SURVEY_REPORT_NO,
V.IMO_NUMBER,
V.VESSEL_TYPE,
v.vessel_type_id,
V.PRIMARY_BUILDER,
V.BUILDER_ID,
V.REGISTER_OWNER,
ASR.ABS_SURVEY_STATUS_ID,
ASR.abs_survey_status_date,
ROUND(SYSDATE - ASR.abs_survey_status_date) AS NOT_ASSIGNED_SINCE,
(SELECT COUNT(1) FROM ABS_FINDINGS WHERE survey_report_no = asr.survey_report_no AND FIN_TAG_STAT_ID IN( 'TG')) AS no_of_findings,
CASE WHEN ( SELECT rnum FROM (SELECT survey_report_no,COUNT(rnum) rnum FROM (SELECT a.survey_report_no,COUNT(*) rnum FROM ABS_FINDINGS A,ABS_SURVEY_REPORTS b
     WHERE a.survey_report_no=b.survey_report_no
     GROUP BY a.survey_report_no,spm_item_category) GROUP BY survey_report_no ) WHERE survey_report_no=asr.survey_report_no )=1 THEN
( SELECT spm_item_cat_id FROM ABS_FINDINGS WHERE survey_report_no = asr.survey_report_no AND ROWNUM<2)
ELSE
5
END CASE,
(SELECT SPM_ITM_CAT_NAME FROM SPM_ITEM_CATEGORIES WHERE SPM_ITEM_CAT_ID =
(CASE WHEN ( SELECT rnum FROM (SELECT survey_report_no,COUNT(rnum) rnum FROM (SELECT a.survey_report_no,COUNT(*) rnum FROM ABS_FINDINGS A,ABS_SURVEY_REPORTS b
     WHERE a.survey_report_no=b.survey_report_no
     GROUP BY a.survey_report_no,spm_item_category) GROUP BY survey_report_no ) WHERE survey_report_no=asr.survey_report_no )=1 THEN
( SELECT spm_item_cat_id FROM ABS_FINDINGS WHERE survey_report_no = asr.survey_report_no AND ROWNUM<2)
ELSE
5
END )) AS SPM_ITM_CAT_NAME,
(SELECT MIN(tag_weight) FROM TAGGED_FINDINGS
          WHERE finding_id IN (SELECT finding_id FROM ABS_FINDINGS WHERE survey_report_no IN (ASR.SURVEY_REPORT_NO))) AS least_confidence
FROM
ABS_SURVEY_REPORTS ASR,
ABS_VESSELS V
WHERE
ASR.FACILITY_ID = V.FACILITY_ID
AND abs_survey_Status_id = 1 ) WHERE no_of_findings>0
ORDER BY ABS_SURVEY_STATUS_DATE
Thanks
venkat

Please start reading these informative links first:
HOW TO: Post a SQL statement tuning request - template posting
When your query takes too long ...
and then rephrase your question by posting
- database version
- execution plans
- etc. (see the links above)
Put the tag before and after your examples, so it'll stay formatted.
See: http://forums.oracle.com/forums/help.jspa

Similar Messages

Query with order by clause

Hi,
I found a query with order by clause in procedure which is taking long time.
Stats are upto date.
Total Rows :650000.
It is ordered by primary key column.
select * from table_name order by col1;
col1 is a primary key.No of cpu's used is 4.
can anyone suggest me a better solution to improve the performance of a query.
Is it better to use parallel hint for above scenario.
Any help really apprecaited.
Thanks in advance.

Hi,
Thanks for ur immediate reply.
It doesn't have where clause.
below is the plan
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 619071987
| Id | Operation                   | Name                 | Rows | Bytes | Cos
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |                      |   671K|   255M| 125
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| FULL_ITEM_FACILITIES |   671K|   255M| 125
|   2 |   INDEX FULL SCAN           | FIF_PK               |   671K|       |
9 rows selected
Executed in 0.094 secondsThanks in advance
Edited by: unique on Jun 22, 2009 8:26 AM

Problem with order by clause

Hai all,
I have problem with order by clause,
My query is
"select number from table1 order by number asc "
and the output is displaying as
1
10
12
13
15
17
19
2
20
21
22
But if we give order by it should display as below only right ?
1
2
10
12
13
15
17
19
20
21
22 ........
Please help me why it is not displaying like it. and how to make the statement to display like the second case. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Uraja

The column datatype that you are selecting is not of NUMBER datatype(might be char or varchar2) hence you are getting such result set.
And for this purpose, it is recommended to set datatype of a column appropriately.
For now you can add TO_NUMBER function to column in ORDER BY clause, only if it has data of number type.
Edited by: Ora on 19 Nov, 2012 3:10 AM

Long run time with ORDER by clause

Hi,
I am having a query which is executing fine(in 2 mins) but when i am using order by clause in it, its taking around 13 mins.
Can anyone suggest what could be th reason and how to execute the same query are get the ordered record?
thanks.

Sorry for not providing complet details.
Database version id 10g.
Below is the execution plan when using with order by clause.
Execution Plan
| Id | Operation                              | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                       |                   |     1 |   118 | 1538 |
|   1 | FILTER                                |                   |       |       |       |
|   2 |   HASH JOIN                            |                   | 16657 | 1089K|    56 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL                   | FILETYP           |     6 |    60 |     3 |
|   4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL                   | FILETYPSOURCEID   | 16657 |   927K|    52 |
|   5 |   NESTED LOOPS                         |                   |     1 |    35 |     3 |
|   6 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | FILEWAREHOUSE     |     1 |    25 |     2 |
|   7 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | FILEWAREHOUSE_DX2 |     1 |       |     2 |
|   8 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | EXTFILE           |     1 |    10 |     1 |
|   9 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                  | PK_EXTFILE        |     1 |       |     1 |
| 10 | SORT ORDER BY                         |                   |     1 |   118 | 1538 |
| 11 |   NESTED LOOPS                         |                   |     1 |   118 | 1534 |
| 12 |    NESTED LOOPS OUTER                  |                   |     1 |   100 | 1533 |
| 13 |     NESTED LOOPS OUTER                 |                   |     1 |    96 | 1532 |
| 14 |      NESTED LOOPS                      |                   |     1 |    88 | 1531 |
| 15 |       HASH JOIN                        |                   |     5 |   360 | 1524 |
| 16 |        TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID     | RTXN              |     1 |    22 |     1 |
| 17 |         NESTED LOOPS                   |                   |   117 | 5148 | 1518 |
| 18 |          VIEW                          | VW_SQ_1           | 20869 |   448K| 1441 |
| 19 |           HASH GROUP BY                |                   | 20869 |   427K| 1441 |
| 20 |            FILTER                      |                   |       |       |       |
| 21 |             TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| RTXNSTATHIST      | 20869 |   427K| 1304 |
| 22 |              INDEX RANGE SCAN          | RTXNSTATHIST_DX2 | 20869 |       |    29 |
| 23 |          INDEX RANGE SCAN              | PK_RTXN           |     1 |       |     1 |
| 24 |           NESTED LOOPS                 |                   |     1 |    24 |     3 |
| 25 |            TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | FILEWAREHOUSE     |     1 |    14 |     2 |
| 26 |             INDEX RANGE SCAN           | FILEWAREHOUSE_DX2 |     1 |       |     2 |
| 27 |            TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | EXTFILE           |     1 |    10 |     1 |
| 28 |             INDEX UNIQUE SCAN          | PK_EXTFILE        |     1 |       |     1 |
| 29 |        TABLE ACCESS FULL               | RTXNTYP           |     1 |    28 |     5 |
| 30 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID      | RTXNSTATHIST      |     1 |    16 |     2 |
| 31 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                | PK_RTXNSTATHIST   |     1 |       |     1 |
| 32 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID       | NTWKNODE          |     1 |     8 |     1 |
| 33 |       INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_NTWKNODE       |     1 |       |     1 |
| 34 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                  | PK_ORG            |     1 |     4 |     1 |
| 35 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | ACCT              |     1 |    18 |     1 |
| 36 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                  | PK_ACCT           |     1 |       |     1 |
Below is the execution plan when running without ORDER BY clause...
Execution Plan
| Id | Operation                             | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                      |                   |     1 |   135 | 1537 |
|   1 | FILTER                               |                   |       |       |       |
|   2 |   HASH JOIN                           |                   | 16657 | 1089K|    56 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL                  | FILETYP           |     6 |    60 |     3 |
|   4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL                  | FILETYPSOURCEID   | 16657 |   927K|    52 |
|   5 |   NESTED LOOPS                        |                   |     1 |    35 |     3 |
|   6 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID        | FILEWAREHOUSE     |     1 |    25 |     2 |
|   7 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | FILEWAREHOUSE_DX2 |     1 |       |     2 |
|   8 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID        | EXTFILE           |     1 |    10 |     1 |
|   9 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                 | PK_EXTFILE        |     1 |       |     1 |
| 10 | NESTED LOOPS                         |                   |     1 |   135 | 1534 |
| 11 |   NESTED LOOPS OUTER                  |                   |     1 |   117 | 1533 |
| 12 |    NESTED LOOPS OUTER                 |                   |     1 |   113 | 1532 |
| 13 |     NESTED LOOPS                      |                   |     1 |   105 | 1531 |
| 14 |      HASH JOIN                        |                   |     5 |   445 | 1524 |
| 15 |       TABLE ACCESS FULL               | RTXNTYP           |     1 |    28 |     5 |
| 16 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID     | RTXN              |     1 |    22 |     1 |
| 17 |        NESTED LOOPS                   |                   |   117 | 7137 | 1518 |
| 18 |         VIEW                          | VW_SQ_1           | 20869 |   794K| 1441 |
| 19 |          HASH GROUP BY                |                   | 20869 |   427K| 1441 |
| 20 |           FILTER                      |                   |       |       |       |
| 21 |            TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| RTXNSTATHIST      | 20869 |   427K| 1304 |
| 22 |             INDEX RANGE SCAN          | RTXNSTATHIST_DX2 | 20869 |       |    29 |
| 23 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN              | PK_RTXN           |     1 |       |     1 |
| 24 |          NESTED LOOPS                 |                   |     1 |    24 |     3 |
| 25 |           TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | FILEWAREHOUSE     |     1 |    14 |     2 |
| 26 |            INDEX RANGE SCAN           | FILEWAREHOUSE_DX2 |     1 |       |     2 |
| 27 |           TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | EXTFILE           |     1 |    10 |     1 |
| 28 |            INDEX UNIQUE SCAN          | PK_EXTFILE        |     1 |       |     1 |
| 29 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID      | RTXNSTATHIST      |     1 |    16 |     2 |
| 30 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                | PK_RTXNSTATHIST   |     1 |       |     1 |
| 31 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID       | NTWKNODE          |     1 |     8 |     1 |
| 32 |      INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | PK_NTWKNODE       |     1 |       |     1 |
| 33 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                  | PK_ORG            |     1 |     4 |     1 |
| 34 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | ACCT              |     1 |    18 |     1 |
| 35 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                  | PK_ACCT           |     1 |       |     1 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by: user10754555 on Feb 5, 2010 6:02 PM

Default where with order by clause

Hi all
How to use Default where with order by clause
for example i want to use Default_where clause with order by clause
Regards
Shahzaib ismail

Hi,
I have a similar query for where clause.
my query-find form is a multi record form like below:
Criteria - Condition - Value
Item/Category/Planner (List_Item) - Equals/Among (List_Item) - text_FIELD
Item - Equals - ITEM_1
Category - Among - ('CAT1', 'CAT2')
Planner - Equals - PL1
Find_BUTTON Clear_BUTTON
User can select any criteria and condition combination and then enter the value in "Value" text field.
My query is: how can I prepare a where clause based on user input since the user can enter any number of values/combinations? I guess I would have to use some looping to generate where clause.
Thanks
Imran

Performance issue-order by clause

hi all,
i hava a Query it will take time to exec 6 sec....
i want to reduce it less 1 sec
i found the problem,that Query it will take more time to Order BY clause...
how to improve the performance ?

Try it with an index. Or give us more information about the query.
How did you find out that it takes more time with the order? Usually ordering does takes time but not so much. be aware that when you add an order by clause then any tool can start showing you the records only after the query is finished. If you have no order by, you can see some results already even if the query is not finished yet.
Make sure you compare the total running time of the query, not only how fast you see the first records.

IN clause with ORDER BY clause in sub-queries

Hello,
We generate dynamic queries with the following statement pattern (could be many union/intersect sub-queries):
select my_col
from my_table
where my_col IN
select table_2.my_col , x_col from table_2 where x_col > 10
UNION
select table_3.my_col , y_col from table_3 where y_col > 20
INTERSECT
select table_4.my_col , z_col from table_4 where z_col is between 30 and 50
I know that I can do just the sub-queries w/ an ORDER BY clause as follows (as long as the 2nd parameter in the select stmts are of the same type):
select table_2.my_col , x_col from table_2 where x_col > 10
UNION
select table_3.my_col , y_col from table_3 where y_col > 20
INTERSECT
select table_4.my_col , z_col from table_4 where z_col is between 30 and 50
order by 2 desc
But my questions are:
1. What is (if there is) the syntax that will ensure that the result set order will be that of the ordering of the sub-queries?
Or does my SQL stmt have to have syntactically (but not semantically) change to achieve this?
Thanks,
Jim

Randolf Geist wrote:
just a minor doubt - I think it is not officially supported to have separate ORDER BYs in a compound query with set operators (e.g. UNION / UNION ALL subsets). Of course one could use inline views with NO_MERGE + NO_ELIMINATE_OBY hints, but I think the only officially supported approach is to use a single, final ORDER BY (that needs to use positional notation as far as I remember).
Randolf,
You're right, of course, about the separate "order by" clauses.
Interestingly the following type of thing does work though (in 10.2.0.3, at least):
with v1 as (
    select * from t1 where col1 = 'ABC' order by col2
v2 as (
    select * from t1 where col1 = 'DEF' order by col2
select * from v1
union all
select * from v2
;A quick check the execution plan suggsts that Oracle appears to be convering this to the following - even though its technically not acceptable in normal circumstances:
select * from t1 where col1 = 'ABC' order by col2
union all
select * from t1 where col1 = 'DEF' order by col2
;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.
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking"
Carl Sagan

Select statement takes very long to run with order by clause.

Hi all,
I have a select statement which when I run without the order by clause takes arround 2 minutes to run. But with the order by clause it goes on for ever. I am trying to access the database server through a network which is not too fast.
The select statement is based on 9 views which are again based on some views. It also has inline views and outer joins. These views and inline views can not be done away with.
When selected without the order by clause it gives 3215 records.
Anything like 2 to 3 minutes will be Ok.
Thanks.
--Malay

The select statement is as follows :-
SELECT f.system_name,
a.signal_type,
f.sys_signal_name,
a.bus_desc,
b.vl_ident,
b.vl_name,
b.src_mac,
b.src_mac_addr,
b.dest_mac,
b.dest_mac_addr,
b.network,
bb.bufr_size_in_bytes,
bb.bag_in_ms,
bb.is_rma_used,
bb.is_ic_used,
bb.sub_vl_cnt,
bb.skew_max_in_ns,
cc.msg_name,
c.src_ip,
c.src_ip_addr,
c.src_port,
c.dest_ip,
c.dest_ip_addr,
c.dest_port,
cc.rate_in_ms,
cc.tx_mode,
cc.protocol,
cc.port_type,
cc.msg_length_in_bytes,
d.mnemonic,
d.start_addr32,
d.lsb,
d.end_addr32,
d.msb,
d.format,
d.init_value,
d.fs_mnemonic,
d.fs_afdx_data_id,
d.digital_data_id,
DECODE(
d.digital_datatype,
NULL, '',
'UNUSED', '',
api$util.concat_column_data(
'api_'
|| d.digital_datatype,
'digital_data_id',
d.digital_data_id,
bool.FALSE
) AS data_details,
f.connection_id
|| '_'
|| a.digital_bus_id
|| '_'
|| b.afdx_vl_id
|| '_'
|| bb.afdx_output_id
|| '_'
|| c.afdx_frame_id
|| '_'
|| cc.afdx_msg_id
|| '_'
|| d.afdx_data_id AS KEY
FROM api_afdx a,
api_afdx_vl b,
api_afdx_output bb,
api_afdx_frame c,
api_afdx_msg cc,
api_afdx_data d,
vf_signal e,
(SELECT DISTINCT aa.signal_id,
cc.system_name,
bb.connection_id,
bb.sys_signal_name
FROM vf_nodes aa,
vf_connections bb,
vf_system cc
WHERE aa.connection_id = bb.connection_id
AND bb.system_id = cc.system_id) f
WHERE e.signal_id = f.signal_id(+)
AND e.digital_bus_id = a.digital_bus_id
               AND a.digital_bus_id = bb.digital_bus_id(+)
AND bb.afdx_output_id = b.afdx_output_id(+)
               AND b.afdx_vl_id = c.afdx_vl_id(+)
AND bb.afdx_output_id = cc.afdx_output_id(+)
AND cc.afdx_msg_id = d.afdx_msg_id(+)
ORDER BY f.system_name,
a.signal_type,
f.sys_signal_name,
b.vl_name,
cc.msg_name,
d.start_addr32,
d.lsb;
Where api_afdx ,
api_afdx_vl ,
api_afdx_output ,
api_afdx_frame ,
api_afdx_msg ,
api_afdx_data ,
vf_signal ,
vf_nodes ,
vf_connections ,
vf_system
are all views.

Oracle query tuning : query with Order-by clause

Hi
I am having a query in my database :
SELECT * FROM SAPR3.HRP1001 WHERE "MANDT" = 990
ORDER BY
"MANDT" , "OTYPE" , "OBJID" , "PLVAR" , "RSIGN" , "RELAT" , "ISTAT" , "PRIOX" , "BEGDA" , "ENDDA" ,"VARYF" , "SEQNR" ;
Autotrace output is :
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=4649 Card=171895 Byt
es=22862035)
1 0 SORT (ORDER BY) (Cost=4649 Card=171895 Bytes=22862035)
2 1 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HRP1001' (Cost=1170 Card=171895
Bytes=22862035)
Statistics
0 recursive calls
5 db block gets
12157 consistent gets
11543 physical reads
0 redo size
38253080 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
376841 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
34201 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
1 sorts (disk)
512992 rows processed
Since it is a issue with order by , it seems a PGA memory issue. there is 12GB PGA available but only 3GB gets allocated. pga_aggregate target is set in the DB. There is a index created for al the columns on order by, but it is not getting used.
pleas suggest me as I am running into major problems, i can post the output of any query u require from my side. Any help wil be highly apprciated.
Rishi

> The query was alwasy spilling over to the One-Parse execution . It can be seen thru ST04N ->resource consumption-> sql work area trace.
>
> An undocumented oracle parameter smmmax_size was set which allowed for more usage of physical memory by single process and there was no spillover to the TEMP tablespaces.
>
> Also the File read time was analysed from Unix level ( From SAP thru ST04 ->filesystem wait s-> Avg rd (ms) and Ang writes (ms) which showed that reading from the File was not happening well. )
Hi Rishi,
the provided execution statistics prove the opposite:
>Statistics
>...
>0 sorts (memory)
> 1 sorts (disk)
>512992 rows processed
This indeed was a single-pass sort, which means it had to use the temp tablespace for one pass of the sorting/grouping.
Remember that Oracle distinguishes three kinds of sorts: 1. "in memory", 2. "single-pass" and 3. "multi-pass".
Only the first one won't need to spill out data to the disks. The others do this by definition.
BTW: the file read times in ST04 are aquired through Oracle V$ views and not directly from the OS - that can make a big difference sometimes.
regards,
Lars

EJB finder query with ORDER BY clause

Hi,
How to query the data in ordered list using Order By clause in the entity Bean.
Here is the part of My code in which i am interrested.
/* @ejbgen:finder
* signature = "Collection findAllData()"
* ejb-ql = "SELECT OBJECT(z) FROM DataProfileBean AS z"
abstract public class DataProfileBean extends EntityAdapter {
* @ejbgen:cmp-field column = DATA_PREFIX
* @ejbgen:primkey-field
* @ejbgen:local-method transaction-attribute = Required
public abstract Integer getDataPrefix();
public abstract void setDataPrefix(Integer DataPrefix);
Now what modification needs to be done in the ejb-ql query to find the DataPrefix in the sorted list.
Regards,
Dilip

I don't think the current spec for EJBs support ORDER BY. But Weblogic has an extension that you can use (that is, if you're using it). Here's the info: http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs61/ejb/cmp.html#1076421

Popup lov with order by clause

I created a form manually using the document from the url:
http://otn.oracle.com/products/database/htmldb/howtos/tabular_form.html#MANUAL
I used the following query from that document.
select htmldb_item.hidden(1,empno) empno,
ename,
htmldb_item.select_list_from_query(3,job,'select distinct job, job from emp') job,
htmldb_item.popupkey_from_query(4,mgr,'select ename, empno from emp',10) mgr,
wwv_flow_item.date_popup(6,null,hiredate) hiredate,
htmldb_item.text(7,sal,10) sal,
htmldb_item.text(8,comm,10) comm,
htmldb_item.select_list_from_query(9,deptno,'select dname, deptno from dept') deptno
from emp
This works fine.
But if I add an order by clause to the query the popup key for mgr column doesn't work.
select htmldb_item.hidden(1,empno) empno,
ename,
htmldb_item.select_list_from_query(3,job,'select distinct job, job from emp') job,
htmldb_item.popupkey_from_query(4,mgr,'select ename, empno from emp',10) mgr,
wwv_flow_item.date_popup(6,null,hiredate) hiredate,
htmldb_item.text(7,sal,10) sal,
htmldb_item.text(8,comm,10) comm,
htmldb_item.select_list_from_query(9,deptno,'select dname, deptno from dept') deptno
from emp
order by ename
Thanks
Chandra.

Duplicate post, see:
popup lov in a report is not working if I have an order by caluse
Sergio

ROWNUM can use with ORDER BY clause?

Hi
Following i have two quires in ROWNUM order for example..
1:query
select rownum,empno,ename,deptno from emp
where rownum <= 14;
result:
rownum empno ename deptno
1 7369 SMITH 20
2 7499 ALLEN 30
3 7521 WARD 30
4 7566 JONES 20
5 7654 MARTIN 30
6 7698 BLAKE 30
7 7782 CLARK 10
8 7788 SCOTT 20
9 7839 KING 10
10 7844 TURNER 30
11 7876 ADAMS 20
12 7900 JAMES 30
13 7902 FORD 20
14 7934 MILLER 10
2:Query , add ORDER BY clause it will change the sequence of ROWNUM.
select rownum,empno,ename,deptno from emp
where rownum <= 14
order by deptno;
result:
rownum empno ename deptno
7 7782 CLARK 10
9 7839 KING 10
14 7934 MILLER 10
1 7369 SMITH 20
11 7876 ADAMS 20
13 7902 FORD 20
8 7788 SCOTT 20
and so on......
but i want these records from 2 to 5...how i can query this through ROWNUM or any sequence because ORDER BY clause change the order of ROWNUM and i could get this result.
rownum empno ename deptno
9 7839 KING 10
14 7934 MILLER 10
1 7369 SMITH 20
11 7876 ADAMS 20
please send me general query which i can apply on any table.
advance thanks.

My guess is that you are looking for a pagination solution. If so, here is a thread on Asktom:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:127412348064
So, essentially, you ORDER BY first and then write a wrapper to get your the rownum.
If you do it this way, You will also use the top-n optimization that Oracle uses.
Rahul.

[10g] Need help with order by clause in hierarchical query

I have the following sample data:
CREATE TABLE     bill_test1
(     parent_part     CHAR(25)
,     child_part     CHAR(25)
,     line_nbr     NUMBER(5)
,     qty_per          NUMBER(9,5)
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-1','ABC-10',100,1);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-1','ABC-20',200,2);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-1','ABC-30',300,3);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-1','HARDWARE-1',401,10);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-1','HARDWARE-2',402,5);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-10','ABC-155',100,2);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-10','HARDWARE-1',200,1);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-155','RAW-2',100,4.8);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-155','HARDWARE-3',200,3);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-20','RAW-1',100,10.2);
INSERT INTO bill_test1 VALUES ('ABC-30','RAW-3',100,3);And the query below gives me exactly what I want, in the order I want it. However, I am wondering if there is a way to get this order without creating the SEQ column, since I don't need it in my results
SELECT     part_nbr
,     parent_part
,     child_part
FROM     (
     SELECT     CONNECT_BY_ROOT b.parent_part                         AS part_nbr
     ,     b.parent_part
     ,     b.child_part
     ,     SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH(b.line_nbr,' ')                    AS seq
     FROM     bill_test1 b
     ,     dual
     CONNECT BY     parent_part     = PRIOR child_part
WHERE          part_nbr     = 'ABC-1'
ORDER BY     seq
Results of above query, except with SEQ included in SELECT (just to show what I'm sorting off of):
PART_NBR                     PARENT_PART                  CHILD_PART                   SEQ
ABC-1                        ABC-1                        ABC-10                        100
ABC-1                        ABC-10                       ABC-155                       100 100
ABC-1                        ABC-155                      RAW-2                         100 100 100
ABC-1                        ABC-155                      HARDWARE-3                    100 100 200
ABC-1                        ABC-10                       HARDWARE-1                    100 200
ABC-1                        ABC-1                        ABC-20                        200
ABC-1                        ABC-20                       RAW-1                         200 100
ABC-1                        ABC-1                        ABC-30                        300
ABC-1                        ABC-30                       RAW-3                         300 100
ABC-1                        ABC-1                        HARDWARE-1                    401
ABC-1                        ABC-1                        HARDWARE-2                    402

Hi,
As long as there's only one root, you can say ORDER SIBLINGS BY, but you can't do that in a sub-query (well, you can, but usually there's no point in doing it in a sub-query). If the CONNECT BY is being done in a sub-query, there is no guarantee that the main query will preserve the hierarchical order that the sub-query provides.
The query you posted doesn't require a suib-query, so you can say:
SELECT     CONNECT_BY_ROOT b.parent_part                         AS part_nbr
,     b.parent_part
,     b.child_part
--,     SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH(b.line_nbr,' ')                    AS seq
FROM     bill_test1 b
WHERE          CONNECT_BY_ROOT b.parent_part     = 'ABC-1'
CONNECT BY     parent_part     = PRIOR child_part
ORDER SIBLINGS BY     b.line_nbr
;I said the query you posted doesn't require a sub-query. It also doesn't require dual, so I suspect what you posted is a simplification of what you're really doing, and that may need a sub-query. In particular, if you intend to GROUP BY part_nbr, then you need the sub-query. We can repeat the CONNECT_BY_ROOT expression in the WHERE clause (or, now that I think about it, use a START WITH clause instead of WHERE), but, for some reason, we can't use CONNECT_BY_ROOT in a GROUP BY clause; we need to compute CONNECT_BY_ROOT in a sub-query, give it a name (like part_nbr), and GROUP BY that column in a super-query.
This assumes that there is only one root node. ORDER SIBLINGS BY means just that: children of a common parent will appear in order, but the root nodes, who have no parents, will not necessarily be in order.
Here's what I meant by using START WITH instead of WHERE:
SELECT     CONNECT_BY_ROOT b.parent_part                         AS part_nbr
,     b.parent_part
,     b.child_part
--,     SYS_CONNECT_BY_PATH(b.line_nbr,' ')                    AS seq
FROM     bill_test1 b
START WITH     b.parent_part     = 'ABC-1'
CONNECT BY     parent_part     = PRIOR child_part
ORDER SIBLINGS BY     b.line_nbr
;This should be much more efficient, because it narrows down the results before you waste time getting their descendants.
Using a START WITH clause here is analagous to me sending you an e-mail, saying "Come to a meeting a my office at 3:00."
Using a WHERE clause here is analagous to me sending an e-mail to everyone in the company, saying "Come to a meeting a my office at 3:00", and then, as people get here, telling everyone except you that they can go back.
ORDER SIBLINGS BY was introduced in Oracle 9.
Edited by: Frank Kulash on Dec 9, 2010 2:39 PM
Added version with START WITH clause

Connect with order by clause

I have a query to get all child records from table lm and in the order they stored in a table s
do you see in problem with the below query
select distinct s.id
from s, (select p.id from p
start with p.child_id= 10
connect by prior p.id = p.child_id) lm
where s.id= lm.id and s.skgid = 1
order by s.seq
Thanks

A bit add to remarkable blushadow's comments.
You really don't need order by in hierarchical queries - results will be sorted in accordance with hierarchy graf order. You may use ORDER SIBLINGS BY clause
to sort hierarchy by something without violation of parent-child ordering:
SQL> select level, ename from emp start with mgr is null connect by mgr = prior empno;
     LEVEL ENAME
         1 KING
         2 JONES
         3 SCOTT
         4 ADAMS
         3 FORD
         4 SMITH
         2 BLAKE
         3 ALLEN
         3 WARD
         3 MARTIN
         3 TURNER
         3 JAMES
         2 CLARK
         3 MILLER
14 rows selected.
SQL> select level, ename from emp start with mgr is null connect by mgr = prior empno
2 order siblings by ename;
     LEVEL ENAME
         1 KING
         2 BLAKE
         3 ALLEN
         3 JAMES
         3 MARTIN
         3 TURNER
         3 WARD
         2 CLARK
         3 MILLER
         2 JONES
         3 FORD
         4 SMITH
         3 SCOTT
         4 ADAMS
14 rows selected.Rgds.

Performance with unspecific where clause

Hi gurus,
at the moment I do have a sql statement on a view with an unspecific where clause like
select from <view> where <textfield> like %whatIsearch%
The text field is not in the key fields which are used to create the view. An index on <textfield> does not help, because the where clause starts with a %.
Other databases like Oracle do finish the statement within seconds, maxdb needs minutes.
I there a possibility to speedup the statement in MaxDB? (Besides telling the user to use better qualified statments.)
Why is Oracle that fast?
Thanks for you help.
Best regards
Christian G

> Other databases like Oracle do finish the statement within seconds, maxdb needs minutes.
> I there a possibility to speedup the statement in MaxDB? (Besides telling the user to use better qualified statments.)
> Why is Oracle that fast?
Hi Christian,
In that case Oracle can take advantage from beeing able to brute-force read many blocks at once (aka multiblock read).
When we assume that there is an index on the oracle database available, then Oracle will likely decide to read all blocks of that index into the cache and look for matches then. It's called Fast Full Scan.
It's not a very efficient method to address specific rows, but for this requirement it works well.
Anyhow, you should be aware that this way of evaluating rows does not scale very well - in fact it get's more expensive with every block the index grows.
MaxDB cannot easily read all blocks in a row, due to the fact that the pages are mixed over all data volumes. This way of storing data eliminates the need for reorganisations and evens out I/O traffic, but it comes for the price of beeing less performant when people use such unefficient predicates.
Because of this and the way who indexes work in MaxDB (primary keys instead of rowids), MaxDB does only consider an index access for like conditions that start with a '%' when the query can be answered by only accessing the index (index only access).
What you may try out to improve the situation is to activate the experimental read-ahead or prefetch feature, which is currently available in MaxDB 7.6. only (not in 7.5 or in 7.7).
By setting READAHEAD_TABLE_THRESHOLD to a value >0, say 128, MaxDB can choose to
perform table scans (no index scans!) in parallel with multiple server tasks for all table scans that are expected to pass the threshold (unit here is pages as visible in the execution plan of your statement).
That way the usertask running the query can work on checking the data in the pages, while the server task load the pages into the cache.
Another approach would be to have the DB Cache big enough so that most of the table would be found in the cache.
regards,
Lars

Performance with order by clause

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for