Tables access information

Hi,
we are in a cleaning process. Althoug nobody gets hurt by unnused customer tables, the customer wants to know about tables that are nort used.
One approach is a where-used-list. OK, done.
Another approach is to analyze table access statistics. AFAIK the database collects statistics from database accesses. From those statistics the system gains information to optimize table access.
Now my question: Where can I find (programatrically or via transaction/report) information about table access?
TIA,
regards,
Clemens

Hello Clements
In packages SEST you will find very interesting objects for program analysis.
Function group SEA1 contains function module <b>RS_PROGRAM_TABLES</b> which will show you all tables accessed by a program object.
For example, enter OBJECT_TYPE = 'TRAN' and OBJECT_NAME = 'VA01' and the function module will show you all tables accessed by the transaction. The list shows you if the tables are read, updated or deleted.
In your case you could write a report that analyzes all customer transactions (since SAP standard transactions should not access customer tables) using function module RS_PROGRAM_TABLES. Customer tables that will not be listed here are not accessed by any program.
Regards
Uwe

Similar Messages

Using index in a query return few records than full table access

Today we have an issue with a query, when it use the ok index the returned are not all records that apply to where clause condition.
See bellow
explain plan for
select * from movdb.zan_m03 where
M00AF = TO_DATE('11/01/28','YY/MM/DD') AND
M00za = 10 AND
m00AC = 50 AND
M00AD between 136906 and 136999
SELECT * FROM TABLE(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 1882720105
| Id | Operation | Name |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| ZAN_M03 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | PK_ZAN_M03 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
2 - access("M00AF"=TO_DATE('11/01/28','YY/MM/DD') AND "M00ZA"=10 AND
"M00AC"=50 AND "M00AD">=136906 AND "M00AD"<=137141)
filter("M00AD"<=137141 AND "M00AD">=136906)
Note
- rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)
20 rows selected.
The query above return only one row insted 1579 record that apply to this conditions.
When forcing a full table acess with a hint, the query return all records that apply, the 1579 record.
select /*+ FULL(zan_m03) */ M00AF, M00za, m00AC , M00AD from movdb.zan_m03 where
M00AF = TO_DATE('11/01/28','YY/MM/DD') AND
M00za = 10 AND
m00AC = 50 AND
M00AD between 136906 and 137141
Can you help me to identify what's happening?
I am with Oracle 10g R2 10.2.0.4 standard edition
the statistics are up to date
the opitimizer_mode are rule, but altering in session level to all_rows happens the same issue.
Nothing about corruption in the alert log.
Thanks in advance
Regards
Cristiano

Yes the query are the same and correct restriction for where clause are M00AD between 136906 and 137141.
I've pasted, by mistake, another test query
The corrects are:
select M00AF, M00za, m00AC , M00AD from movdb.zan_m03 where
M00AF = TO_DATE('11/01/28','YY/MM/DD') AND
M00za = 10 AND
m00AC = 50 AND
M00AD between 136906 and 137141
This use pk index and return one row
select /*+ FULL(zan_m03) */ M00AF, M00za, m00AC , M00AD from movdb.zan_m03 where
M00AF = TO_DATE('11/01/28','YY/MM/DD') AND
M00za = 10 AND
m00AC = 50 AND
M00AD between 136906 and 137141
This does a full table access and return 1579 records
I´ve been searching for wrong results bugs on my oracle support, but not found one that mentions something like our issue.
I checked the dba_tables and dba indexes and the number of rows are different, and I think this would be the same because it's is a pk.
Look this
SQL> select NUM_ROWS from dba_tables where table_name = 'ZAN_M03'
2 /
NUM_ROWS
228527878
select NUM_ROWS from dba_indexes where index_name = 'PK_ZAN_M03';
SQL> select NUM_ROWS from dba_indexes where index_name = 'PK_ZAN_M03';
NUM_ROWS
217510185
Is normal a index for pk having much fewer rows than table? I think not, but not sure.
Again
Thanks in advance
Regards
Cristiano

Oracle 9.2 prefers Table Access Full over Local Index by rowid access

There's this table that has phone call records (30 million per day) that is partitioned by month (using the date column) and stores the last 6 months.
The primary key is date (varchar2 in yymmdd format) + call_id (a varchar2(18) with a format like this yyyymmdd+<3letters>+<sequentialnumber>)
The partition is by range like this:
PARTITION BY RANGE (FECHA)
PARTITION P200804 VALUES LESS THAN ('080501')
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS,
If I run this query I get this plan
SELECT FECHA, SENTIDOTRAFICO,GEOGRAFIAID,SWITCHID,TIPOTRAFICOID,COUNT(*)
FROM GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW
WHERE FECHA BETWEEN '080801' AND '080825'
     AND TASACION IS NULL
     AND BORRADO IS NULL
GROUP BY FECHA, SENTIDOTRAFICO,GEOGRAFIAID,SWITCHID,TIPOTRAFICOID
Plan
SELECT STATEMENT CHOOSECost: 78 K Bytes: 24 K Cardinality: 1 K
     2 SORT GROUP BY Cost: 78 K Bytes: 24 K Cardinality: 1 K
          1 TABLE ACCESS FULL GESTION.GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW Cost: 43 K Bytes: 625 M Cardinality: 31 M Partition #: 2 Partitions accessed #5
If I hint the primary key index using /*+INDEX(GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW PK_CDRS_RCNG_NEW)*/
I get a different plan
Plan
SELECT STATEMENT CHOOSECost: 954 K Bytes: 24 K Cardinality: 1 K
     3 SORT GROUP BY Cost: 954 K Bytes: 24 K Cardinality: 1 K
          2 TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID GESTION.GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW Cost: 918 K Bytes: 625 M Cardinality: 31 M Partition #: 2 Partitions accessed #5
               1 INDEX RANGE SCAN UNIQUE GESTION.PK_CDRS_RCNG_NEW Cost: 137 K Cardinality: 31 M Partition #: 3 Partitions accessed #5
Looking at the cost, the full scan is way better, but this is obviously not the case. Why does this happen?
This problem forces many querys on this table to use hints or force the index use by adding conditions to the where clause like this
where fecha = '080801'
and clave like '20080801%'
when just by stating the date would be enough to choose the correct partition. It also messes up joins with other tables.
The table is analized every month, it has statistics that claim: 237,981,000 rows, 3,222,677 blocks, GLOBAL STATS: YES, LAST ANALYZED: 15/10/2008 21:05:26, Average row length: 213.
The partition envolved in this query has this stats: 32,520,520 rows, 442,715 blocks, analized on 27/08/2008 20:43:40
The index has this stats: analized on 15/10/2008 21:35:32, Blevel: 3, leaf blocks: 1,056,410, distinct keys: 238,484,510.
It is a local index and each partition has its own statistics.

If I don't understand incorrectly the plan and the Predicater information, it seems the full scan version that costs less is actually doing a full scan from the biggining of the table (6 months) up to the 080825 date and the one using an index (hinted) does a better scan.
without hint
| Id | Operation            | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |                    | 1170 | 24570 | 78443 |       |       |
|   1 | SORT GROUP BY       |                    | 1170 | 24570 | 78443 |       |       |
|* 2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW |    31M|   625M| 42579 |     5 |     5 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - filter("GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW"."FECHA"<='080825')
Note: cpu costing is offWith the hint:
| Id | Operation                          | Name              | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Pstart| Pstop |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                   |                    | 1170 | 24570 |   953K|       |       |
|   1 | SORT GROUP BY                     |                    | 1170 | 24570 |   953K|       |       |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY LOCAL INDEX ROWID| GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW |    31M|   625M|   918K|     5 |     5 |
|* 3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                | PK_CDRS_RCNG_NEW   |    31M|       |   136K|     5 |     5 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - access("GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW"."FECHA">='080801' AND "GES_CDRS_RCNG_NEW"."FECHA"<='080825')
Note: cpu costing is off

Monitor table access

Hi,
we are in a cleaning process. Althoug nobody gets hurt by unnused customer tables, the customer wants to know about tables that are nort used.
One approach is a where-used-list. OK, done.
Another approach is to analyze table access statistics. AFAIK the database collects statistics from database accesses. From those statistics the system gains information to optimize table access.
Now my question: Where can I find (programatrically or via transaction/report) information about table access?
TIA,
regards,
Clemens

U have the list of custom related tables. Goto SE11 & using the custom table check where-used-list. It displays where all the table has been used. If the table has not been used anywhere or else not related at all to a program which is not needed, these all tables can be eliminated from the system.

How to make optimizer fetch and join values from Indexes, no table access.

Hi All,
i am having a query which is just checking the existence of the values according to some of the filter criteria, and involves two tables in join. and i want optimizer to find the existence i.e the reult of the query by only accessing indexes only, not to go through table scan using indexes. Is there any way so that i can modify my query or force the optimizer to do the same? below is the existing plan of the query in which its accessing tables using indexes, which causing bottleneck in my DB as these tables are bulky ones.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1209914516
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | Pstart| Pstop |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | | 6 (17)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | | | | |
|* 2 | FILTER | | | | | | | |
| 3 | FAST DUAL | | 1 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 24 | 4 (25)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 5 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 10 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | INVOICELINEDISB | 1 | 10 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
|* 7 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | IDX_INVLINEDISB_UOMCD | 1 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 8 | PARTITION HASH ITERATOR | | 1 | 14 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 | KEY | KEY |
|* 9 | TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID| INVOICEHEADERDISB | 1 | 14 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 | ROWID | ROWID |
|* 10 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | P_INVOICEHEADERDISB_PART | 1 | | 0 (0)| 00:00:01 | KEY | KEY |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT 0 FROM "XIGNCMN"."INVOICEHEADERDISB" "INVOICEHEADERDISB","XIGNCMN"."INVOICELINEDISB"
"INVOICELINEDISB" WHERE "INVOICELINEDISB"."UNITOFMEASURECD"='USD' AND
"INVOICEHEADERDISB"."INVOICEPK"="INVOICELINEDISB"."INVOICEPK" AND "INVOICEHEADERDISB"."PAYPK"=8135488395))
7 - access("INVOICELINEDISB"."UNITOFMEASURECD"='USD')
9 - filter("INVOICEHEADERDISB"."PAYPK"=8135488395)
10 - access("INVOICEHEADERDISB"."INVOICEPK"="INVOICELINEDISB"."INVOICEPK")
Statistics
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
14 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
410 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
385 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

Jonathan Lewis wrote:
930254 wrote:
Hi All,
i am having a query which is just checking the existence of the values according to some of the filter criteria, and involves two tables in join. and i want optimizer to find the existence i.e the reult of the query by only accessing indexes only, not to go through table scan using indexes. Is there any way so that i can modify my query or force the optimizer to do the same? below is the existing plan of the query in which its accessing tables using indexes, which causing bottleneck in my DB as these tables are bulky ones.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1209914516
| Id | Operation                              | Name                     | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                       |                          |     1 |       |     6 (17)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|   1 | SORT AGGREGATE                        |                          |     1 |       |            |          |       |       |
|* 2 |   FILTER                               |                          |       |       |            |          |       |       |
|   3 |    FAST DUAL                           |                          |     1 |       |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|   4 |    NESTED LOOPS                        |                          |     1 |    24 |     4 (25)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|   5 |     SORT UNIQUE                        |                          |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|   6 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID       | INVOICELINEDISB          |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|* 7 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                 | IDX_INVLINEDISB_UOMCD    |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |       |
|   8 |     PARTITION HASH ITERATOR            |                          |     1 |    14 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |   KEY |   KEY |
|* 9 |      TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID| INVOICEHEADERDISB        |     1 |    14 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 | ROWID | ROWID |
|* 10 |       INDEX UNIQUE SCAN                | P_INVOICEHEADERDISB_PART |     1 |       |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |   KEY |   KEY |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT 0 FROM "XIGNCMN"."INVOICEHEADERDISB" "INVOICEHEADERDISB","XIGNCMN"."INVOICELINEDISB"
"INVOICELINEDISB" WHERE "INVOICELINEDISB"."UNITOFMEASURECD"='USD' AND
"INVOICEHEADERDISB"."INVOICEPK"="INVOICELINEDISB"."INVOICEPK" AND "INVOICEHEADERDISB"."PAYPK"=8135488395))
7 - access("INVOICELINEDISB"."UNITOFMEASURECD"='USD')
9 - filter("INVOICEHEADERDISB"."PAYPK"=8135488395)
10 - access("INVOICEHEADERDISB"."INVOICEPK"="INVOICELINEDISB"."INVOICEPK")
The sort unique at line 5 is surprising, I can't think of an obvious reason why it should appear unless the optimizer is trying to do something very clever to work around a problem we can't see (such as a statistics error with the hash partitioned indexe).
Assuming that the test would do better starting with invoiceheaderdisn.paypkl I have to ask if you have an index on INVOICELINEDISB(INVOICEPK).The optimizer's choice of driving table indeed looks odd. Could it be due to misleading statistics or plain bug or just a case of CBO preferring a non-partitioned table over partitioned table when deciding the driving table? I must admit this design does look odd as it appears INVOICEHEADERDISB is a parent table and INVOICELINEDISB is a child table but somehow the parent table has been partitioned (using hash partitioning, I assume) but the child table is not.
However, once CBO has decided the driving table, the SORT UNIQUE is not quite surprising. Assuming optimizer knows that there is a parent-child relationship between INVOICEHEADERDISB and INVOICELINEDISB table (based on INVOICEPK column), CBO needs to access only INVOICEPK and UNITOFMEASURECD columns fron the INVOICELINEDISB table in order to process the join. It uses index range scan on UNITOFMEASURECD table in order to get (part of) the necessary data and then accesses INVOICELINEDISB table to get the values of INVOICEPK column. Being a child table, it is possible that the driving row source will contain duplicate values for INVOICEPK column but not necessarily sorted. As CBO knows that outer table (i.e. INVOICEHEADERDISB) has a PK on INVOICEPK column, each row in driving row source will have either 1 or 0 rows matching from outer table. It appears that CBO "decides" that by eliminating the duplicate values of the INVOICEPK from driving row source, it can reduce the number of times the INVOICEHEADERDISB table is accessed.
Now I am not sure if CBO does all this (eliminating duplicates from driving row source) only because the outer table is partitioned.
Coming back to OP's original question, I believe OP will have to change the index definitions in order to avoid table access for this query. But there has to be a strong and logical argument to make this kind of change for just one query.
Hope this helps.

Function Module showing Transparent Table access??

Hi Guys,
I'm in the process of writing some programs that will archive some of our Custom tables (they are getting very full!).
Now, instead of going through ALL the custom tables we created, I'm trying to write a small program that will bring me tables that have certain criteria...
One of the criteria is Tables Access. I'm trying to see when last a table has been accessed (by a program, for example). Im not talking about the last Change Date (as per table DD02L entries) as I presume this actually indicates technical changes to the table??
Im looking for a Function Module that can actually give me the last date any given transparent table's data has been accessed...
Does anyone know of such a Function Module/Class?
tks
C
POINTS WILL BE REWARDED FOR USEFULL AWNSERS

Hello Christian,
To answer your question, it is normally obtained through ST04 (DB Performance Monitor).
However, the inherent information pertinent to Table Access made by application programs depends on the underlying Database involved. In case of DB server being ORACLE...you may use the program RSORASCC.
Also, I would like to make a further recommendation about your methodology to identify custom transparent tables. Besides studying the table accesses, it is very important to consider the current size and the growth rate over a period of time. For doing this, use DB02 (Space Statistics for Tables and indexes) and workout the list of tables which you have to concentrate from archiving perspective.
Hope this info helps you and resolves your query.
With Regards
Vijay Gajavalli

Error during table access in SRM portal

Hello Experts,
Recently we have upgraded the R/3 System 4.6C to ECC 6.0. We are trying to change the quantity of PO and order again in SRM 7.0 portal , but it is throwing an error 'Error during table access'. This happens only when we try to change the ordered PO and only after the R3 system is upgraded.I have checked across SDN forum before posting, but was not able to get relevant information.
Let me know if any configuration at the basis/functional level or any BADI needs to be checked, or if any OSS notes is there for ECC 6.0.
I checked two of them and it was not relevant to ECC.
Could you please help me in solving the issue?
Thanks in Advance,
M M Jaffer.

Hi Mathweus,
the namespace seems to be standard SAP name space with pre delivered content. So i think you can not regenerate the proxy in the same namespace. you need to copy the data type, message type and service interface to custom SWCV and namespace and then regenerate the proxy.
regards,
Harish

How improve performance on access path TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID ?

I have table MOVEMENT with about 26millions entries,
select rowid from movement xxx
where
xxx.sTransType > 0
AND xxx.sDevice < 1000
AND xxx.sDevice >= 0
AND (bitand(xxx.sSaleFlag,1) = 0 AND bitand(xxx.sSaleFlag,4) = 0)
AND xxx.sArtClassRef < 100
and xxx.tActionTime BETWEEN TO_DATE('13-05-2011 08:08:34', 'dd-mm-yyyy hh24:mi:ss') AND to_date('13-05-2011 14:08:34', 'dd-mm-yyyy hh24:mi:ss') ;
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Plan hash value: 679628763
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 34 | 10102 (1)| 00:02:02 |
|* 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| MOVEMENT | 1 | 34 | 10102 (1)| 00:02:02 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | MOVATIME_IX | 18489 | | 51 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter("XXX"."SARTCLASSREF"<100 AND BITAND("XXX"."SSALEFLAG",1)=0 AND
BITAND("XXX"."SSALEFLAG",4)=0 AND "XXX"."STRANSTYPE">0 AND "XXX"."SDEVICE"<1000
AND "XXX"."SDEVICE">=0)
2 - access("XXX"."TACTIONTIME">=TO_DATE('2011-05-13 08:08:34', 'yyyy-mm-dd
hh24:mi:ss') AND "XXX"."TACTIONTIME"<=TO_DATE('2011-05-13 14:08:34', 'yyyy-mm-dd
hh24:mi:ss'))
there is index on tActionTime - MOVATIME_IX
This query returns 12203 rows, so I would anticipate this number in plan table in row with id 1 and column Rows
Final question if it is possible to optimize this query and what are the next steps to do it?
Thanks.

>
I thought that access path via ROWID's is the fastest way to get row
>
It is the fastest way to get the row - FROM THE TABLE.
But the ROWIDs have to be gotten from the index. That is what the INDEX RANGE SCAN is doing. It is getting the ROWIDs needed and then the TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID is getting the rows.
>
I'am still confused with COST values, TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID has 200times higher cost than INDEX RANGE SCAN,
>
The index entries for a range scan are in order so they are very compact. The actual rows might be all over the place.
Have you ever you a library? Not the online ones - I mean the old-fashioned kind that actually has books printed on paper?
If the librarian asks you, her helper, to go get all books whose title begins with the letter 'B' how would you do it?
You could go back to the stacks and look at every book on every shelf for books with titles' starting with 'B'. That is the same as a FULL TABLE SCAN.
Or you could go to the card catalog, pull out the drawer (or drawers) that has 'B' on the label and look at the information on the card. Part of that information is the location of the actual book: section, stack; that is similar to the ROWID.
The card catalog might get you to the right stack of books; then you have to search the stack sequentially to look for the book by name.
A ROWID will get Oracle to the right block but then it has to find the right row.
So the cost of getting ROWIDs from an index using a RANGE SCAN (where values are scanned in order) is a lot cheaper than actually getting the rows. The first two index entries needed might be right next to each other in order but the rows themselves might be far apart on the disk.

INDEX UNIQUE SCAN instead of   INDEX FULL SCAN or TABLE ACCESS FULL

I have calculated statistics in all tables and indexes
I have a table and a view and when I put it
SELECT *
FROM TABLE_A A
INNER JOIN VIEW_B B ON A.KEY_ID = B.PFK_KEY_ID
WHERE (B.FK_ID_XXX = 1)
If I see the execution plan:
In TABLE_A make a
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN (FIELD_A_TABLE_A_PK)
Itâs OK. I NEED IT (INDEX UNIQUE SCAN)
But If I put
SELECT A.Field_1, A.Field_2, A.Field_3, A.Field_4
FROM TABLE_A A
INNER JOIN VIEW_B B ON A.KEY_ID = B.PFK_KEY_ID
WHERE (B.FK_ID_XXX = 1)
In table A make a TABLE ACCESS FULL.
Then If I put:
SELECT /*+ INDEX(A FIELD_A_TABLE_A_PK) */ A.Field_1, A.Field_2, A.Field_3, A.Field_4
FROM TABLE_A A
INNER JOIN VIEW_B B ON A.KEY_ID = B.PFK_KEY_ID
WHERE (B.FK_ID_XXX = 1)
If I see the execution plan:
In TABLE_A make a
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN (FIELD_A_TABLE_A_PK)
Itâs OK. I NEED IT (INDEX UNIQUE SCAN)
Finally, If I put other tables and views in the query (I NEED IT)
For example:
SELECT /*+ INDEX(A FIELD_A_TABLE_A_PK) */ A.Field_1, A.Field_2, A.Field_3, A.Field_4
FROM TABLE_A A
INNER JOIN VIEW_B B ON A.KEY_ID = B.PFK_KEY_ID
INNER JOIN TABLE_Câ¦.
LEFT JOIN VIEW_Dâ¦.
WHERE (B.FK_ID_XXX = 1)
If I see the execution plan:
In TABLE_A make a
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID
INDEX FULL SCAN (FIELD_A_TABLE_A_PK)
I need INDEX UNIQUE SCAN instead of INDEX FULL SCAN or TABLE ACCESS FULL.
How can obtain it?
What happens???
Thanks!

Notice the difference in cardinality between your two select statements:
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = ALL_ROWS Cost=5 Cardinality=1
SELECT STATEMENT, GOAL = ALL_ROWS Cost=10450 Cardinality=472161Apparently since the optimizer believed the first statement was going to return one row, it used an index. But in the second statement it believed it was going to return nearly the whole table (didn't you say it had around 500k rows?). Hence full table scan.

How do you use Default Resource Access Information?

I have some 10g Forms & Reports that I want to use with SSO and they will all be connecting to the database with the same connection info. I know how to configure a Default Resource Access Information, but how do you use this with Forms & Reports?

Douglas,
the default Resource Access Infomation should be the connection information right? This is used in conjunction with SSO. You need to configure your F&R applications to delegate authentication to SSO by placing ssoMode=true in the config section of formsweb.cfg.
The Forms Servlet will connect to OID retrieve the Resource Access Information (descriptor) for a given user and automatically log them into the application.
Users will need a global identity in OID and SSO must be enabled to use resource access info with F&R
regards,
tt

How to find out the tables effected information from oracle from

can any one tell me how to find out the tables effected information from oracle form

Hi,
Please refer to the following documents.
Note: 259722.1 - HOWTO Determine Table and Column Name from a field in a form in 11i
Note: 241628.1 - How to Find the Query That Succeeded Recently?
Regards,
Hussein

How to automate iPPE Access Information filling in ie02

Hello users,
I am trying to automate the equipment creation using BAPI and BDC. I am able to create equipment using BAPI and BDC recordings for all the tabs in ie02 but not able to reacord the iPPE Access Information, where in there comes a popup Selection of iPPE Access which am not able to record in a BDC. Is there a better way to fill in the iPPE access information.

Hi Zabeen
This can be possible that you have made some changes to the recording code so transfer the recording to the program and execute it in foreground with any changes to that code, hope you will get the pop up window.
If that pop up is related to any message like warning or success then the BDC program will not take that into consideration.
Also use this option in SHDB.
option : simulate background mode.
while recording though BDC use the following option as ticked.
Default Size = X
Cont. after Commit = X
Not a Batch Input session = X
or try to change the equipment using BAPI_EQUI_CHANGE .There is a structure called DATA_SPECIFIC which is specific for Equipment related data.
For classification related changes, look at the FM's available in transaction BAPI
Cross Application Components -> Classification
Cheers
NZAB

How to re-configure the actual Hotspot configuration/access information?

Hi,
how c/an I re-configure the acual HOTSPOT configuration/access information? [MBP Retina - late 2012 | OSx 10.8.2]
THX in advance,
NNIE

As you are using verzion DSL connection ….Try this setting on router:
1) Open router set up page using http://192.168.1.1 …..You will see username & password …leave username blank & in password use admin.
2) Under set up look for “mac address clone” sub-tab….. Enable the service & click clone ….click save settings.
3) Click on “status” tab….. if it shows any valid public Ip address try going online…..if it shows Internet Ip as 192.168.1.X. with gateway 192.168.1.1…then
a) Click set up again ….change the Local Ip address from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.2.1….click save settings.
b) Power down the router then the modem for few seconds …..Power on the modem first …then the router & see you are online or not.
4) If the internet Ip address is 0.0.0.0…click on set up again …change internet connection type to PPPOE…use your DSL username & password …click save settings.
5) Click status & click connect…if shows connected try going online….if not let mw know the error message you are getting on the status screen.
Follow above steps & let me know if it helps or not.

Table access by index rowid taking more time

Hi All
I've a query like
update tab1
set col1 = ( select col2 from
tab2
where tab1.id = tab2.id) table 1 has arnd 10,000 rows
table 2 has arnd 1,700,000 rows and has a primay key on column id.
This query is taking around 20 secs to execute. I checked the xplan and most of time taken for table access by index rowid.
Could you please suggest what can be the reason for this. (Can it be the clustering factor or something else)
I checked the stats for the tab2, its just three days old.
Regards
Ashwani

>
table 1 has arnd 10,000 rows
table 2 has arnd 1,700,000 rows and has a primay key on column id.
This query is taking around 20 secs to execute. I checked the xplan and most of time taken for table access by index rowid.
Could you please suggest what can be the reason for this. (Can it be the clustering factor or something else)
I checked the stats for the tab2, its just three days old.
>
If you checked the xplan why haven't you posted it so we can look at it? Then we could see what table is being accessed by index rowid. Presumably it is table 2 but we the plan would eliminate the need to make assumptions.
The clustering factor could be a factor. You haven't told us how table1 is being accessed. All rows are being updated so a full table scann is most likely but again the plan would actually show the access.
Did you query the dictionary to see what the clustering factor is? Post the results of that
SQL> select index_name, leaf_blocks, avg_leaf_blocks_per_key, avg_data_blocks_per_key, clustering_factor, distinct_keys
2 from dba_indexes
3 where owner = 'schema'
4 and index_name in ('index_b','index_a');

Export table access to oracle with Database ODBC()

Hi,
I export a table, access 2003, ent_tab whit 'DataBase ODBC()' to oracle.
I open Oracle SQL Developer and i can show table ent_tab, but i go worksheet and execute:
select * from ent_tab
and display error: ORA-00942...
Why??!!
Regards
Jomar

Because ODBC created the table with "" which allowed lower case table name, but Oracle uses upper case table name by default. Suggest you recreate the table with upper-case name to avoid having to use "" in select statements.
Edited by: rgeier on Oct 27, 2009 5:34 PM

Tables access information

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for