SYS_REFCURSOR takes more time than direct query execution

Question

I have a stored proc which has 4 inputs and 10 output and all outputs are sys_refcursor type.
Among 10 ouputs, 1 cursor returns 4k+ records and all other cursors has 3 or 4 records and average 5 columns in each cursors. For this, it takes 8 sec to complete the execution. If we directly query, it gives output in .025 sec.
I verified code located the issue with cursor which returns 4k+ only.
The cursor opening from a temporary table (which has 4k+ records ) without any filter. The query which inserted into temporary is direct inserts only and i found nothing to modify there.
Can anyone suggest, how we can bring the results in less than 3 sec? This is really a challenge since the code needs to go live next week.
Any help appreciated.
Thanks
Renjish

Answer 1

I've just repeated the test in SQL*Plus on my test database.
Both the ref cursor and direct SQL took 4.75 seconds.
However, that time is not the time to execute the SQL statement, but the time it took SQL*Plus in my command window to print out the 3999 rows of results.
SQL> create or replace PROCEDURE TEST_PROC (O_OUTPUT OUT SYS_REFCURSOR) is
  2  BEGIN
  3    OPEN  O_OUTPUT FOR
  4      select 11 plan_num, 22  loc_num, 'aaa' loc_nm from dual connect by level < 4000;
  5  end;
  6  /
Procedure created.
SQL> set timing on
SQL> set linesize 1000
SQL> set serverout on
SQL> var o_output refcursor;
SQL> exec test_proc(:o_output);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.04
SQL> print o_output;
  PLAN_NUM    LOC_NUM LOC
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
3999 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:04.75
SQL> select 11 plan_num, 22  loc_num, 'aaa' loc_nm from dual connect by level < 4000;
  PLAN_NUM    LOC_NUM LOC
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
        11         22 aaa
3999 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:04.75
That's the result I expect to see, both taking the same amount of time to do the same thing.
Please demonstrate how you are running it and getting different results.