Slow performance when using cursor with bind variable

i'm facing the problem mentioned in the subject.
whenever i use the bind variable it would take more than 5mins to fetch 157 records, but if i hardcode the value ( not using variable ) it would take only 10sec to fetch 157 records.
can anyone give me some guide to solve this problem? thank you..
Code :
DECLARE
cursor cur1(l_startdate IN varchar2,l_enddate IN varchar2) IS
select * from shipment ship where ship.insertion_date >= to_date(l_startdate,'DD-MM-YYYY HH24:MI:SS') and ship.insertion_date < to_date(l_enddate ,'DD-MM-YYYY HH24:MI:SS')
TYPE shipment_aat IS TABLE OF cur1%ROWTYPE INDEX BY PLS_INTEGER;
l_shpt shipment_aat;
limit_in INTEGER := 100;
BEGIN
v_startdate := '10-06-2008 14:00:00';
v_enddate := '10-06-2008 17:00:00';
OPEN C_shpt(v_startdate,v_enddate);
LOOP --start shipment loop   
FETCH C_shpt BULK COLLECT INTO l_shpt LIMIT limit_in;
     FOR indx IN 1 .. l_shpt.COUNT
LOOP
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('l_shpt value ' || l_shpt(indx).ship_number || '/' || l_shpt(indx).insertion_date);
END LOOP;
EXIT WHEN l_shpt.COUNT < limit_in;
END LOOP; -- end of shipment loop
CLOSE cur1;
END;

When your query takes too long ...

Similar Messages

  • Default form value using sql with bind variable

    I wish to create a form based upon a table with a foreign key. I wish to add a field to the form that is an uneditable text field with a default value using sql of 'select name from other_table where other_table_id = ?' where ? is a bind variable defined by a hidden field which is the value of the foreign key identified at runtime. How can this be done?
    null

    I don't think that will work. I have multiple people accessing the Portal at the same time with the same login (or lack of as public will be the most common user). I could set it easily enough as the value is passed to the form by a link object, so I could add it to the before page plsql block and set the value. But I am uncertain how it will behave in a multi-user mutlitasking environment.
    Maybe I should describe what I am looking to accomplish. I want to create a display above a form that will list static details from other tables (i.e. when editing a user's phone number, which is in one table, you want the user to see the person's name, which is in another table, and the form is based upon the phone table) ...
    Just as I am thinking about it, I thought of an idea. I could put some specific code in the before displaying page plsql section to query the database and use htp to output the information for data not in the table the form is based upon. I will try this and see how it works. It would have been nice to have just created a field that is not editable and had a default value, but this should work as well.
    Let me know if you see any problem with this or if you have any better suggestions.
    Thanks for the fast response.

  • Slow Query over Database Link with Bind Variable

    I have a query over a DB link, with all tables on the remote database.
    If I use a bind variable (from Toad), the query takes 4 minutes. If I replace the bind variable with a constant or substitution variable, it takes 1 second.
    The query runs fine when run directly on the remote database using bind variable.
    9.2.0.7

    Look up "Bind variable peeking"
    What's happened is you have an execution plan that differs from the one with the constant. Why? My bet is that Oracle "peeked" at the bind variable to help it decide which execution plan to build. It then cached it. It probably cached an execution with an index when it should be doing a full table scan or a hash join instead of a nested loop. It's hard to say specifically what it is.
    Try this, flush your shared pool and rerun the query with the bind and let us know if it takes 1 second or 4 minutes. If it takes 1 second, then that was probably it.
    Read part 2 of Tom Kyte's blog post on what it is and it's behavior.
    http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2007/09/sqltracetrue-part-two.html

  • Slow Performance when using USB HD with Time Capsule

    I have a 500 GB Time Capsule that I primarily use for network storage for 4 computers (3 Windows and a MacBook Pro). There is about 250 GB of data on the TC. After doing my research, I hooked up a 2 TB WD My Book to the TC USB port (after first reformatting the My Book using Mac OS Extended (Journaled). TC recognized the NAS HD just fine, but when I tried moving files from the TC to the My Book, it took FOREVER. 66 hrs to copy all 250 GB; 46 hours to move 60GB). I tried connecting the My Book directly to my MB Pro via USB and files moved quickly (15 minutes for 10GB). With the My Book connected to the MB Pro, I can access TC over Wifi and copy files directly onto the My Book in little time (again about 15 min for 10 GB). Any idea why the USB transfer rate between TC and the NAS is so slow? I have the most current TC firmware.

    Jmiko wrote:
    That thread is 5 years old
    ???? It's from three days ago. The electronic book it references was updated last year.
    Plus that was talking about a 2002 Airport Extreme base station, whereas I have a 2009 Time Capsule.
    As I mentioned above, the source I quoted is from last year. The thread I cited mentions nothing about
    a particular year of base station. Where do you see that stuff?
    As for my wifi connection, it seems very fast in all respects. As I mentioned, when I connect the external HD to my MacBook Pro and transfer files over my wifi from the Time Capsule, it boogies along. At any rate, I am not sure why the wifi would have an affect on the transfer rate of 2 disks connected by a USB cable.
    My point was that, if that data has to travel over your Wi-Fi connection, the quality of that connection could affect the transfer speed you see. To investigate that possibility, I'd connect your Mac to the AirPort base station via Ethernet, turn your Mac's AirPort circuitry off, and repeat your tests that way.

  • Slow performance when multiple threads access static variable

    Originally, I was trying to keep track of the number of function calls for a specific function that was called across many threads. I initially implemented this by incrementing a static variable, and noticed some pretty horrible performance. Does anyone have an ideas?
    (I know this code is "incorrect" since increments are not atomic, even with a volatile keyword)
    Essentially, I'm running two threads that try to increment a variable a billion times each. The first time through, they increment a shared static variable. As expected, the result is wrong 1339999601 instead of 2 billion, but the funny thing is it takes about 14 seconds. Now, the second time through, they increment a local variable and add it to the static variable at the end. This runs correctly (assuming the final increment doesn't interleave which is highly unprobable) and runs in about a second.
    Why the performance hit? I'm not even using volatile (just for refernce if I make the variable volatile runtime hits about 30 seconds)
    Again I realize this code is incorrect, this is purely an interesting side-expirement.
    package gui;
    public class SlowExample implements Runnable
         public static void main(String[] args)
              SlowExample se1 = new SlowExample(1, true);
              SlowExample se2 = new SlowExample(2, true);
              Thread t1 = new Thread(se1);
              Thread t2 = new Thread(se2);
              try
                   long time = System.nanoTime();
                   t1.start();
                   t2.start();
                   t1.join();
                   t2.join();
                   time = System.nanoTime() - time;
                   System.out.println(count + " - " + time/1000000000.0);
                   Thread.sleep(100);
              catch (InterruptedException e)
                   e.printStackTrace();
              count = 0;
              se1 = new SlowExample(1, false);
              se2 = new SlowExample(2, false);
              t1 = new Thread(se1);
              t2 = new Thread(se2);
              try
                   long time = System.nanoTime();
                   t1.start();
                   t2.start();
                   t1.join();
                   t2.join();
                   time = System.nanoTime() - time;
                   System.out.println(count + " - " + time/1000000000.0);
              catch (InterruptedException e)
                   e.printStackTrace();
               * Results:
               * 1339999601 - 14.25520115
               * 2000000000 - 1.102497384
         private static int count = 0;
         public int ID;
         boolean loopType;
         public SlowExample(int ID, boolean loopType)
              this.ID = ID;
              this.loopType = loopType;
         public void run()
              if (loopType)
                   //billion times
                   for (int a=0;a<1000000000;a++)
                        count++;
              else
                   int count1 = 0;
                   //billion times
                   for (int a=0;a<1000000000;a++)
                        count1++;
                   count += count1;
    }

    Peter__Lawrey wrote:
    Your computer has different types of memory
    - registers
    - level 1 cache
    - level 2 cache
    - main memory.
    - non CPU local main memory (if you have multiple CPUs with their own memory banks)
    These memory types have different speeds. Depending on how you use a variable affects which memory it is placed in.Plus you have the hotspot compiler kicking in sometime during the run. In other words for some time the VM is interpreting the code and then all of a sudden its compiled and executing the code compiled. Reliable micro benchmarking in java is not easy. See [Robust Java benchmarking, Part 1: Issues|http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-benchmark1.html]

  • Why CBO don't use function-base index when I use like and bind variable

    Hello
    I have litle problem with function-base index and like with bind variable.
    When I use like with bind variable, the CBO don't use my function-base index.
    For example when I create table and index:
    ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT='BINARY_CI';
    ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP='LINGUISTIC';
    alter session set nls_language='ENGLISH';
    -- DROP TABLE TEST1;
    CREATE TABLE TEST1 (K1 VARCHAR2(32));
    create index test1_idx on test1(nlssort(K1,'nls_sort=BINARY_CI'));
    INSERT INTO TEST1
    SELECT OBJECT_NAME FROM ALL_OBJECTS;
    COMMIT;
    When I run:
    ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT='BINARY_CI';
    ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP='LINGUISTIC';
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 = 'abcd';
    or
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE 'abcd%';
    CBO use index.
    PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
    SQL_ID 4vrmp7cshbvqy, child number 1
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE 'abcd%'
    Plan hash value: 1885706448
    | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
    | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 1 (100)| |
    | 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TEST1 | 2 | 98 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TEST1_IDX | 2 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
    2 - access("TEST1"."SYS_NC00002$">=HEXTORAW('6162636400') AND
    "TEST1"."SYS_NC00002$"<HEXTORAW('6162636500') )
    but when I run
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE :1;
    CBO don't use index
    PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
    SQL_ID 9t461s1669gru, child number 0
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE :1
    Plan hash value: 4122059633
    | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
    | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 89 (100)| |
    |* 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST1 | 2 | 48 | 89 (3)| 00:00:02 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
    1 - filter("K1" LIKE :1)
    What should I change to force CBO to use index.
    I don't wont use index hint in query.
    My oracle version:
    Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.1.0 - 64bit Production
    PL/SQL Release 11.2.0.1.0 - Production
    CORE     11.2.0.1.0     Production
    TNS for 64-bit Windows: Version 11.2.0.1.0 - Production
    NLSRTL Version 11.2.0.1.0 - Production

    OK. But why if I create normal index (create index test1_idx on test1(K1)) and return to default nls settings this same query use index.
    PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
    SQL_ID 9t461s1669gru, child number 0
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE :1
    Plan hash value: 598212486
    | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
    | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 1 (100)| |
    |* 1 | INDEX RANGE SCAN| TEST1_IDX | 1 | 18 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
    1 - access("K1" LIKE :1)
    filter("K1" LIKE :1)
    Note
    - dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)
    when index is function-base (create index test1_idx on test1(nlssort(K1,'nls_sort=BINARY_CI')))
    PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
    SQL_ID 9t461s1669gru, child number 1
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE K1 LIKE :1
    Plan hash value: 4122059633
    | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
    | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 89 (100)| |
    |* 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST1 | 3 | 54 | 89 (3)| 00:00:02 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
    1 - filter("K1" LIKE :1)
    Note
    - dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)
    when I create index with upper function "index test1_idx on test1(upper(K1))" the query use index
    SELECT * FROM TEST1 WHERE upper(K1) LIKE :1
    Plan hash value: 1885706448
    | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
    | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 1 (100)| |
    | 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TEST1 | 4481 | 157K| 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TEST1_IDX | 806 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
    2 - access("TEST1"."SYS_NC00002$" LIKE :1)
    filter("TEST1"."SYS_NC00002$" LIKE :1)
    Note
    - dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)

  • BC4J bug with "bind variables" JBO-27122 ORA-01008

    I think we are found a BUG using BC4J with bind variables in a view object.
    If the bind variable appear in the WHERE condition two or more times at
    the beginning of the query the above error occur.
    oracle.jbo.SQLStmtException: JBO-27122: SQL error during statement preparation. Statement:
    SELECT Emp.EMPNO,Emp.ENAME,Emp.JOB,Emp.MGR,Emp.HIREDATE,Emp.SAL,Emp.COMM, Emp.DEPTNO
    FROM SCOTT.EMP Emp
    WHERE :1 <=10000 and :1 <= sal and :2=20
    java.sql.SQLException: ORA-01008: not all variables bound
    Otherwise if bind variable apper two or more times, but not together
    like this sample:
    WHERE :1 <=10000 and :2=20 and :1 <= sal
    the error not occur.
    We prove this with:
    JDeveloper 9.0.5.2 (build 1618)Business Components Version 9.0.5.16.0
    JDeveloper 9.0.5.0 (build 1375)Business Components Version 9.0.5.13.52
    I looking for a patch! or acceptable workaround.
    Tx for your help!
    diego.
    /* the cliente app */
    ApplicationModule am = Configuration.createRootApplicationModule("business_tier.AppModule","AppModuleLocal");
    ViewObject vo = am.findViewObject("EmpView");
    vo.setWhereClauseParam(0,"100");
    vo.setWhereClauseParam(1,"20");
    Row emp = vo.first();

    This is a known bug (1326006). The workaround is to use:
    vo.setWhereClauseParam(0,"100");
    vo.setWhereClauseParam(1,"20");
    vo.setWhereClauseParam(2,"20");
    Hope this helps,
    Lynn
    Java Tools Team

  • SLOW report performance with bind variable

    Environment: 11.1.0.7.2, Apex 4.01.
    I've got a simplified report page where the report runs slowly compared to running the same query in sqldeveloper. The report region is based on a pl/sql function returning a query. If I use a bind variable in the query inside apex it takes 13 seconds to run, and if I hard code a string it takes only a few hundredths of a second. The query returns one row from a table which has 1.6 million rows. Statistics are up-to-date and the columns in the joins and where clause are indexed.
    I've run traces using p_trace=YES from Apex for both the bind variable and hard coded strings. They are below.
    The sqldeveloper explain plan is identical to the bind variable plan from the trace, yet the query runs in 0.0x seconds in sqldeveloper.
    What is it about bind variable syntax in Apex that is causing the bad execution plan? Apex Bug? 11g bug? Ideas?
    tkprof output from Apex trace with bind variable is below...
    select p.master_id link, p.first_name||' '||p.middle_name||' '||p.last_name||' '||p.suffix personname,
    p.gender||' '||p.date_of_birth g_dob, p.master_id||'*****'||substr(p.ssn,-4) ssn, p.status status
    from persons p
    where
       p.person_id in (select ps.person_id from person_systems ps where ps.source_key  like  LTRIM(RTRIM(:P71_SEARCH_SOURCE1)))
    order by 1
    call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
    Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
    Execute      1      0.00       0.01          0          1         27           0
    Fetch        2     13.15      13.22      67694      72865          0           1
    total        4     13.15      13.23      67694      72866         27           1
    Misses in library cache during parse: 0
    Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
    Parsing user id: 62  (ODPS_PRIVACYVAULT)   (recursive depth: 1)
    Rows     Row Source Operation
          1  SORT ORDER BY (cr=72869 pr=67694 pw=0 time=0 us cost=29615 size=14255040 card=178188)
          1   FILTER  (cr=72869 pr=67694 pw=0 time=0 us)
          1    HASH JOIN RIGHT SEMI (cr=72865 pr=67694 pw=0 time=0 us cost=26308 size=14255040 card=178188)
          1     INDEX FAST FULL SCAN IDX$$_0A300001 (cr=18545 pr=13379 pw=0 time=0 us cost=4993 size=2937776 card=183611)(object id 68485)
    1696485     TABLE ACCESS FULL PERSONS (cr=54320 pr=54315 pw=0 time=21965 us cost=14958 size=108575040 card=1696485)
    Rows     Execution Plan
          0  SELECT STATEMENT   MODE: ALL_ROWS
          1   SORT (ORDER BY)
          1    FILTER
          1     HASH JOIN (RIGHT SEMI)
          1      INDEX   MODE: ANALYZED (FAST FULL SCAN) OF
                     'IDX$$_0A300001' (INDEX)
    1696485      TABLE ACCESS   MODE: ANALYZED (FULL) OF 'PERSONS' (TABLE)
    Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
      Event waited on                             Times   Max. Wait  Total Waited
      ----------------------------------------   Waited  ----------  ------------
      db file scattered read                       1276        0.00          0.16
      db file sequential read                       812        0.00          0.02
      direct path read                             1552        0.00          0.61
    ********************************************************************************Here's the tkprof output with a hard coded string:
    select p.master_id link, p.first_name||' '||p.middle_name||' '||p.last_name||' '||p.suffix personname,
    p.gender||' '||p.date_of_birth g_dob, p.master_id||'*****'||substr(p.ssn,-4) ssn, p.status status
    from persons p
    where
       p.person_id in (select ps.person_id from person_systems ps where ps.source_key  like  LTRIM(RTRIM('0b')))
    order by 1
    call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
    Parse        1      0.02       0.04          0          0          0           0
    Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0         13           0
    Fetch        2      0.00       0.00          0          8          0           1
    total        4      0.02       0.04          0          8         13           1
    Misses in library cache during parse: 1
    Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
    Parsing user id: 62  (ODPS_PRIVACYVAULT)   (recursive depth: 1)
    Rows     Row Source Operation
          1  SORT ORDER BY (cr=10 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=9 size=80 card=1)
          1   FILTER  (cr=10 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us)
          1    NESTED LOOPS  (cr=8 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us)
          1     NESTED LOOPS  (cr=7 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=8 size=80 card=1)
          1      SORT UNIQUE (cr=4 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=5 size=16 card=1)
          1       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID PERSON_SYSTEMS (cr=4 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=5 size=16 card=1)
          1        INDEX RANGE SCAN IDX_PERSON_SYSTEMS_SOURCE_KEY (cr=3 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=3 size=0 card=1)(object id 68561)
          1      INDEX UNIQUE SCAN PK_PERSONS (cr=3 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=1 size=0 card=1)(object id 68506)
          1     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID PERSONS (cr=1 pr=0 pw=0 time=0 us cost=2 size=64 card=1)
    Rows     Execution Plan
          0  SELECT STATEMENT   MODE: ALL_ROWS
          1   SORT (ORDER BY)
          1    FILTER
          1     NESTED LOOPS
          1      NESTED LOOPS
          1       SORT (UNIQUE)
          1        TABLE ACCESS   MODE: ANALYZED (BY INDEX ROWID) OF
                       'PERSON_SYSTEMS' (TABLE)
          1         INDEX   MODE: ANALYZED (RANGE SCAN) OF
                        'IDX_PERSON_SYSTEMS_SOURCE_KEY' (INDEX)
          1       INDEX   MODE: ANALYZED (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'PK_PERSONS'
                      (INDEX (UNIQUE))
          1      TABLE ACCESS   MODE: ANALYZED (BY INDEX ROWID) OF
                     'PERSONS' (TABLE)

    Patrick, interesting insight. Thank you.
    The optimizer must be peeking at my bind variables with it's eyes closed. I'm the only one testing and I've never passed %anything as a bind value. :)
    Here's what I've learned since my last post:
    I don't think that sqldeveloper is actually using the explain plan it says it is. When I run explain plan in sqldeveloper (with a bind variable) it shows me the exact same plan as Apex with a bind variable. However, when I run autotrace in sqldeveloper, it takes a path that matches the hard coded values, and returns results in half a second. That autotrace run is consistent with actually running the query outside of autotrace. So, I think either sqldeveloper isn't really using bind variables, OR it is using them in some other way that Apex does not, or maybe optimizer peeking works in sqldeveloper?
    Using optimizer hints to tweak the plan helps. I've tried both /*+ FIRST_ROWS */ and /*+ index(ps pk_persons) */ and both drop the query to about a second. However, I'm loath to use hints because of the very dynamic nature of the query (and Tom Kyte doesn't like them either). The hints may end up hurting other variations on the query.
    I also tested the query by wrapping it in a select count(1) from ([long query]) and testing the performance in sqldeveloper and in Apex. The performance in that case is identical with both bind variables and hard coded variables for both Apex and SqlDeveloper. That to me was very interesting and I went so far as to set up two bind variable report regions on the same page. One region wrapped the long query with select count(1) from (...) and the other didn't. The wrapped query ran in 0.01 seconds, the unwrapped took 15ish seconds with no other optimizations. Very strange.
    To get performance up to acceptable levels I have changed my function returning query to:
    1) Set the equality operator to "=" for values without wildcards and "like" for user input with wildcards. This makes a HUGE difference IF no wildcard is used.
    2) Insert a /*+ FIRST_ROWS */ hint when users chose the column that requires the sub-query. This obviously changes the optimizer's plan and improves query speed from 15 seconds to 1.5 seconds even with wildcards.
    I will NOT be hard coding any user supplied values in the query string. As you can probably tell by the query, this is an application where sql injection would be very bad.
    Jeff, regarding your question about "like '%' || :P71_SEARCH_SOURCE1 || '%'". I've found that putting wildcards around values, particularly at the beginning will negate any indexing on the column in question and slows performance even more.
    I'm still left wondering if there isn't something in Apex that is breaking the optimizer "peeking" that Patrick describes. Perhaps something in the way it switches contexts from apex_public_user to the workspace schema?

  • Report Performance with Bind Variable

    Getting some very odd behaviour with a report in APEX v 3.2.1.00.10
    I have a complex query that takes 5 seconds to return via TOAD, but takes from 5 to 10 minutes in an APEX report.
    I've narrowed it down to one particular bind. If I hard code the date in it returns in 6 seconds, but if I let the date be passed in from a parameter it takes 5+ minutes again.
    Relevant part of the query (an inline view) is:
    ,(select rglr_lect lect
    ,sum(tpm) mtr_tpm
    ,sum(enrols) mtr_enrols
    from ops_dash_meetings_report
    where meet_ev_date between to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY') - 363 and to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY')
    group by rglr_lect) RPV
    I've tried replacing the "to_date(:P35_END_DATE,'DD/MM/YYYY') - 363" with another item which is populated with the date required (and verified by checking session state). If I replace the :P35_END_DATE with an actual date the performance is fine again.
    The weird thing is that a trace file shows me exactly the same Explain Plan as the TOAD Explain where it runs in 5 seconds.
    Another odd thing is that another page in my application has the same inline view and doesn't hit the performance problem.
    The trace file did show some control characters (circumflex M) after each line of this report's query where these weren't anywhere else on the trace queries. I wondered if there was some sort of corruption in the source?
    No problems due to pagination as the result set is only 31 records and all being displayed.
    Really stumped here. Any advice or pointers would be most welcome.
    Jon.

    Don't worry about the Time column, the cost and cardinality are more important to see whther the CBO is making different decisions for whatever reason.
    Remember that the explain plan shows the expected execution plan and a trace shows the actual execution plan. So what you want to do is compare the query with bind variables from an APEX page trace to a trace from TOAD (or sqlplus or whatever). You can do this outside APEX like this...
    ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS '10046 trace name context forever, level 1';Enter and run your SQL statement...;
    ALTER SESSION SET sql_trace=FALSE;This will create a a trace file in the directory returned by...
    SELECT value FROM v$parameter WHERE name = 'user_dump_dest' Which you can use tkprof to format.
    I am assuming that your not going over DB links or anything else slightly unusual?
    Cheers
    Ben

  • How to use ApplicationModuleImpl.createViewObject for VO with bind variable

    I need to implement a AM method to create VO instance from a generic VODef with bind variables.
    The createViewObject() will trigger the executeQuery of the VO before I can set up the bind variables for the query.
    What is the proper way to create view object instance with bind variables?

    I am using JDeveloper 11.1.1.2.
    I have a ViewObjectA declared with some bind variables which determine what business data to be retrieved at runtime via a service method of the ApplicationModule.
    As the ViewObjectA is only referenced internally within ApplicationModule and I need more than one instance of the ViewObjectA for different conditions at runtime,
    I use ApplicationModuleImpl.createViewObject() to create an instance of ViewObjectA instead of adding ViewObjectA to the data model of the ApplicationModule.
    Currently, when the ViewObjectA is instantiated, it also trigger an executeQuery() which will not retrieve correct data until I set up the bind variables.
    However, the createViewObject() method doesn't let me pass in the values of the binding variables.
    Currenlty, I just call the createViewObject() and then set the binding variables values and call executeQuery() again.
    Just checking if there is a better way to do so...

  • Query with bind variable, how can use it in managed bean ?

    Hi
    I create query with bind variable (BindControlTextValue), this query return description of value that i set in BindControlTextValue variable, how can i use this query in managed bean? I need to set this value in String parameter in managed bean.
    Thanks

    Put the query in a VO and execute it the usual way.
    If you need to, you can write a parameterized method in VOImpl that executes the VO query with the parameter and then call that method from the UI (as a methodAction binding) either through the managed bean or via a direct button click on the page.

  • SQL query with Bind variable with slower execution plan

    I have a 'normal' sql select-insert statement (not using bind variable) and it yields the following execution plan:-
    Execution Plan
    0 INSERT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=7 Card=1 Bytes=148)
    1 0 HASH JOIN (Cost=7 Card=1 Bytes=148)
    2 1 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'TABLEA' (Cost=4 Card=1 Bytes=100)
    3 2 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'TABLEA_IDX_2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=3 Card=1)
    4 1 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF 'TABLEB_IDX_003' (NON-UNIQUE)
    (Cost=2 Card=135 Bytes=6480)
    Statistics
    0 recursive calls
    18 db block gets
    15558 consistent gets
    47 physical reads
    9896 redo size
    423 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
    1095 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
    3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
    1 sorts (memory)
    0 sorts (disk)
    55 rows processed
    I have the same query but instead running using bind variable (I test it with both oracle form and SQL*plus), it takes considerably longer with a different execution plan:-
    Execution Plan
    0 INSERT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=407 Card=1 Bytes=148)
    1 0 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'TABLEA' (Cost=3 Card=1 Bytes=100)
    2 1 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=407 Card=1 Bytes=148)
    3 2 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF TABLEB_IDX_003' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=2 Card=135 Bytes=6480)
    4 2 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'TABLEA_IDX_2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=2 Card=1)
    Statistics
    0 recursive calls
    12 db block gets
    3003199 consistent gets
    54 physical reads
    9448 redo size
    423 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
    1258 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
    3 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
    1 sorts (memory)
    0 sorts (disk)
    55 rows processed
    TABLEA has around 3million record while TABLEB has 300 records. Is there anyway I can improve the speed of the sql query with bind variable? I have DBA Access to the database
    Regards
    Ivan

    Many thanks for your reply.
    I have run the statistic already for the both tableA and tableB as well all the indexes associated with both table (using dbms_stats, I am on 9i db ) but not the indexed columns.
    for table I use:-
    begin
    dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(ownname=> 'IVAN', tabname=> 'TABLEA', partname=> NULL);
    end;
    for index I use:-
    begin
    dbms_stats.gather_index_stats(ownname=> 'IVAN', indname=> 'TABLEB_IDX_003', partname=> NULL);
    end;
    Is it possible to show me a sample of how to collect statisc for INDEX columns stats?
    regards
    Ivan

  • Problem with Bind Variable in 11.2

    Hi
    I have a slow statement with bind Variables. With literals it works fine. Is there a way to replace the bind by literal in advanced ? I use Release 11.2.0.2.3
    Thank you

    904062 wrote:
    I have a slow statement with bind Variables. With literals it works fine. Is there a way to replace the bind by literal in advanced ? I use Release 11.2.0.2.3This specific scenario is very much an exception to the rule - and you need to back your statement up with execution plans of the SQL with bind variables and with literals, and run stats that show the difference between these two execution plans.
    See the {message:id=9360003} from the {forum:id=75} forum's FAQ for details on how to post a SQL performance tuning question.

  • Report Query with Bind variables working very slowly

    Hi everyone,
    I'm having a hard time with one of my Reports.
    Basically the query looks like this:
    Select *
    from x,y,z
    where x.lang_id = :P1_LANG
    and y.name = :P1_LANG;
    I have a textfield and a Select List on my Page which have to have a value before the report is shown.
    Now to the problem, when I input a value into these Application Items the Report takes ages (3-5 min). But when I replace the Bind variables (:P1_LANG and :P1_LANG) with the actual values it takes mere seconds.
    Anyone got an idea why this might be?
    I'm at my wits end -.-
    Edited by: DocD on Oct 27, 2009 3:01 AM

    Hi
    This could be for a number of reasons and unfortunately there is no quick answer...
    When you run a query for the first time, the execution plan is worked out by the Cost Based Optimiser (I'm assuming you're using 10g or above here). This is referred to as a hard parse. Next time the same SQL text is used then the execution plan may still be in the shared pool - in this case the same execution plan is used rather than being calculated again.
    The great thing about using bind variables is that even with different inputs, the SQL text is the same so the execution plan can be shared for different inputs. One downside is that if the first time the query is executed using bind variables, out of the ordinary values are input, bind variable peeking can lead to a sub optimal execution plan being calculated for the query and then shared in other situations (where more 'normal' values are input).
    However, it could be down to a host of other things too. So your first check is to make sure that you have executed both queries a number of times. If you are still getting the same performance issues then plan post the full query, table creation scripts and execution plan for both querys.
    Cheers
    Ben

  • Create collection from query with bind variable

    Apex 4.0.2
    Per Joel Re: Collection with bind variable the apex_collection.create_collection_from_query_b supports queries containing bind variable references (:P1_X) but I am not sure how to use this feature, the documentation doesn't have an example, just the API signature for the overloaded version has changed.
    If the query contains 2 bind variable references to session state (:P1_X and :P1_Y), can someone please show an example of what to pass in for the p_names and p_values parameters to the API?
    Thanks
    procedure create_collection_from_query_b(
        -- Create a named collection from the supplied query using bulk operations.  The query will
        -- be parsed as the application owner.  If a collection exists with the same name for the current
        -- user in the same session for the current Flow ID, an application error will be raised.
        -- This procedure uses bulk dynamic SQL to perform the fetch and insert operations into the named
        -- collection.  Two limitations are imposed by this procedure:
        --   1) The MD5 checksum for the member data will not be computed
        --   2) No column value in query p_query can exceed 2,000 bytes
        -- Arguments:
        --     p_collection_name   =  Name of collection.  Maximum length can be
        --                            255 bytes.  Note that collection_names are case-insensitive,
        --                            as the collection name will be converted to upper case
        --     p_query             =  Query to be executed which will populate the members of the
        --                            collection.  If p_query is numeric, it is assumed to be
        --                            a DBMS_SQL cursor.
        -- example(s):
        --     l_query := 'select make, model, caliber from firearms';
        --     apex_collection.create_collection_from_query_b( p_collection_name => 'Firearm', p_query => l_query );
        p_collection_name in varchar2,
        p_query           in varchar2,
        p_names           in wwv_flow_global.vc_arr2,
        p_values          in wwv_flow_global.vc_arr2,
        p_max_row_count   in number default null)
        ;

    VANJ wrote:
    Apex 4.0.2
    Per Joel Re: Collection with bind variable the apex_collection.create_collection_from_query_b supports queries containing bind variable references (:P1_X) but I am not sure how to use this feature, the documentation doesn't have an example, just the API signature for the overloaded version has changed.
    If the query contains 2 bind variable references to session state (:P1_X and :P1_Y), can someone please show an example of what to pass in for the p_names and p_values parameters to the API?Not tried it, but guessing something like
    apex_collection.create_collection_from_query_b(
        p_collection_name => 'foobar'
      , p_query => 'select f.foo_id, b.bar_id, b.baz from foo f, bar b where f.foo_id = b.foo_id and f.x = to_number(:p1_x) and b.y = :p1_y'
      , p_names => apex_util.string_to_table('p1_x:p1_y')
      , p_values => apex_util.string_to_table(v('p1_x') || ':' || v('p1_y')))

Maybe you are looking for