Why is outer join more expensive than inner joins.

Why is outer join more expensive than inner joins.
Other than it may return more rows.
If you know of any ORA docs on this, please let me know.
Thanks.

Outer join is inner join with outer union applied on top of it. As you correctly observed it returns more rows and that alone makes it more expensive. Secondly, outer join is not commutative. As a result some join permutations are exclused from consideration, which results in higher cost.

Similar Messages

Why fixed layout is more expensive than reflow?

Hi
i'm a beginner in epub and css.
I noticed that fixed layout is more expensive than reflow and i do not understand why.
To my mind, the work is the same : modify css and some other pages (toc etc.)
so the price should be the same.
sorry for this question which must be stupid, but i need to know:)
Ced

Fixed Layout EPUB with InDesign currently requires knowledge of custom plug-ins to precisely position objects on the page. You're not getting any help from InDesign. It can be quite time consuming.
Reflowable EPUB with InDesign CC can be mostly done by properly formatting the document with styles, by using the Articles panel, by customizing objects with Object Export Options, by mapping styles to tags, etc. Most of the work is done in InDesign and it requires less time.
I can say publicly that Douglas Waterfall, InDesign's software architect, has hinted that he is leading work on the Fixed Layout area and we may see big changes before long.

Could you tell me why does Mac is more expensive than Windows?

I love Apple, don't get me wrong. Just, i see Mac is more expensive than Windows.

Windows is an operating system for which you pay money. Mac's operating system, Mavericks, is free.
If you are speaking of hardware, then you need to make a specific hardware comparison of apples with apples, not apples and oranges.

Why is a monitor more expensive than a hd lcd tv

why is a 30 inch hd lcd monitor £1900 when you can buy a 32 inch panasonic or a sony high definition lcd tv with digitl buit in, hdmi sockets and use it for every thing for £1400?
can some 1 explain this to me, you can even get samsungs for £1050 which is less still.
can some 1 explain this to me, and dont try to tell me that the apple display will give you a far better picture because it wont

Its to do with resolution. The Apple monitors support a higher resolution, therefore, require individual pixels. So, on a 20" monitor, the resolution is 1680x1050, on a TV screen, this is usally 1024x768 or 1280x768 (widescreen). This is because most broadcasts are 500-lines or so for normal definition, or 720 or scalled down from 1080 for HD resolution. But computer monitors are used for multi-tasking, etc, so require a high resolution to open lots of apps and view them at the same time. Making these panels requires a more expensive manufacturing process to get the panels made with the minimal of errors and dead pixels. A 30" LCD TV for HD would have a resolution of 1376x768 or 1280x768, the Apple HD monitor has one of 2560x1900 - way better - this is why it'll be better to get a Mac monitor for an extremely sharp picture with no scalling of HD footage, you'll get the full quality.

Why is the Touch more expensive than the phone?

The iPhone which does MORE than the iPod Touch is $100 cheaper for the 32GB model! What the heck?!?
iPhone 3G S 32GB $299
iPod Touch 32GB $399

F Shippey wrote:
The actual price is reflected in the 'No-commitment pricing': $599 (16GB) and $699 (32GB)
To get the lower prices you must sign a 2 year contract and a portion of each month's payment goes to paying off the difference in price.
If this 'no-commitment price' is true, then how come I don't see it listed in their online store?

Why Mac pro is better & more expensive than IMac?!

can you advice me on this:
tell me which one is more practical and powerful for 3D rendering and animation?! why?!
and why Mac pro is more expensive than IMac?! even though numbers in IMac are higher than Mac pro.......
IMac:
          - 27-inch
          - 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
          - 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB
          - 2TB Serial ATA Drive
          - AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
or
Mac pro:
Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)
12GB (6X2GB)
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB
One 18x SuperDrive

Apparently you don't fathom or realize what I said:
Better value: Mac Pro 6-core 3.33GHz. You can buy base and throw in W3680.
You can buy a single 6-core like that from Apple and pay $900 more.
I do not recommend 12-core.
I do not recommend the slower 2.66 processor
I do recommend avoiding the 2009 model.
Better off starting with the 2.8 4-core and go from there.
Ivy Bridge socket LGA2011 will have a lot of other features making them the "to die for" but no one knows and I for one would not want to be on cutting edge with any chipset or new revision. Seriously, Apple has always had issues with first silicon whether 2011 MBP or iMac or 2008/2009 Mac Pro. And always takes a couple OS updates. And then things break. And then software has to catch up.
A slower 12-core is not going to future proof. It is going to cost more and not deliver.
For last year we've all been seeing and saying 6 x 3.33.
why I sent you link to MPG site.

Why is the iTunes shop in Australia more expensive than the rest of the world?

Why is the iTunes shop in Australia more expensive than the rest of the world?

How do you know that there is not parity?
Do you know Apples expenses in each country?
Apple has to sell the music for the price that they can negotiate with the owners of the distribution rights in each country.
Perhaps those who own the rights to distribute the music in Australia simply negotiated a higher price.

Why is apple Australia so much MORE expensive than America!?

so tell me, Why is apple Australia so much MORE expensive than America!? i have been meaning to pick up a new imac.....and i saw that the exact same type of imac that i want i could pick up in America for a good $600 LESS.... you know, even though our dollar is HIGHER THAN AMERICA'S! *** APPLE!

Reasons:
Australian import duties
Australian taxes on foreign imports
Australian VAT
Got complaints? Talk to your politicians. Apple has nothing to do with it.

Why are hp servers general more expensive than dell offerings ?

Because that's where they feel the price point is in the market for their servers.

why are hp servers general more expensive than dell offerings ?
This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

For All Entries is NOT better than INNER JOIN in most cases

I quote from Siegfried Boes' excellent post here: Will writing an inner join be better or creating a view?
For all the FOR ALL ENTRIES lovers ... there is no proof for these reappearing recommendation.
There is nearly nobody who receives forum points, who recommends FOR ALL ENTRIES instead of Joins. What is the reason ???
It is easier to prove the opposite. A Join is a nested loop inside the database, a FOR ALL ENTRIES is partly outside of the database. FOR ALL ENTRIES works in blocks, joins on totals.
FOR ALL ENTRIES are not recommded on really large tables, because the chances are too high that
too many records are transferred.
People prefer FOR ALL ENTRIES, because JOINs are not so easy to understand. Joins can go wrong, but with a bit of understanding they can be fixed.
Some Joins are slow and can not be fixed, but then the FOR ALL ENTRIES would be extremely slow.
There are several kinds of views:
- projection views, i.e. only one table involved just fields reduced
- join views, several tables, joins conditions stored in dictionary
- materialized views, here the joined data are actually stored in the database. Storing and synchronisation has to be done manually.
Only the last one creates real overhead. It should be the exception.
Join Views and Joins are nearly identical. The view is better for reuse. The join is better in complicated, becuase if the access goes wrong, it can often be fixed by adding a hint. Hints can not be added to views.
Abraham Bukit points out:
If it is cluster table, (you can't use join). If it is buffered table, I would also say avoid join.
If they all are transaction table which are not buffered and are not cluster tables.
He further supports Siegfried's statement that FAE is easier to undestand than INNER JOINs.
Thomas Zloch says, regarding buffered tables:
At least think twice, maybe compare runtimes if in doubt.
So, unless someone has some EVIDENCE that FOR ALL ENTRIES is better, I don't think we want to see this discussed further.
Kind regards
Matt

To give food for thought here's an example I gave in a thread:
If you have a statement like
SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES IN FAE_itab WHERE f = FAE_itab-f.
SAP sends it to the database depending how the parameter rsdb/prefer_union_all is set:
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 0 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[2]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[N]-f
You have some influence of the generated statement type: Instead of OR'ed fields an IN list can be used
if you have only a single coulmn N to compare:
rsdb/prefer_in_itab_opt parameter:
SELECT ... WHERE f IN (itab[1]-f, itab[2]-f, ..., itab[N]-f)
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 1 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[2]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[N]-f
see: Note 48230 - Parameters for the SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES statement
As you can see for the 2nd parameter several statements are generated and combined with a UNION ALL,
the first setting generates statements with OR's (or uses IN if possible) for the entries in FAE_itab.
I give you a little example here (my parameters are set in a way that the OR's are translated to IN lists; i traced the execution in ST05)
Select myid into table t_tabcount from mydbtable
for all entries in t_table    " 484 entries
    where myid = t_table-myid .
ST05 trace:
|Transaction SEU_INT|Work process no 0|Proc.type DIA|Client 200|User |
|Duration |Obj. name |Op.    |Recs.|RC    |Statement|
| 640|mydbtable |PREPARE|   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( :A0 , :A1 , :A2 , :A3 , :A4 ) AND "myid" = :A5|
| 2|mydbtable |OPEN   |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 2.536|mydbtable |FETCH |    0| 1403|   |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 118|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ) AND "myid" = 72     |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 475 , 476 , 477 , 478 , 479 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 94|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| 1403|   |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 480 , 481 , 482 , 483 , 484 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
You see the IN list contained 5 entries each , wich made up about 97 statements for all 484 entries.
For every statment you have a single fetch operation wich means a separate access to the database.
If you would replace the FAE with a join you would only have one fetch to the database.
With the example above we can derive these observations:
1. From database point of view these settings kill performance when you access a big table and/or have a lot of entries or columns in your FAE_itab. Furthermore, you hide information what data you will access
at all and thus you block the database from creating a more efficient execution plan because it DOESN'T KNOW wich data you will select in the next step. I.e. it may be more efficient to scan the table in one shot instead of having many index accesses - but the database can make this decision only if it can examine ONE statement that has ALL the information of what data to retrieve.
2. A second impact is that with every statement execution you trigger the allocation of database resources
wich will contribute to the overhead described above.
Said that, FAE can never be a replacement for joining big tables (think of having a table with thousands of records in a FAE table )
Edited by: kishan P on Nov 2, 2010 2:16 PM - Format Fixed

Album more expensive than sum of tracks

I've found that with some albums, the album is more expensive than all the individual tracks together.
For example, take Staind's new album:
http://music.ovi.com/za/en/pc/Product/Staind/Staind/19390411
Note: I can only see the South African pricing - don't know how the pricing works in other countries.
It contains 10 tracks, costing R8 each, giving a total of R80.
However, the album costs R100. Why is the album more expensive? Does it contain anything more than the tracks? This is one example, but I've seen a few others as well.

No reason to buy a more expensive album, if you can get the individual tracks separately for less.
I have no insight to record lable pricing. This one sounds a bit like an accident/mistake.
Compare also the pricing in, e.g., Apple's iTunes store and other music services that are offered in your country; if they sell the tracks or the album as MP3's or AAC's, or even WMA, you can use them on your Nokia phone. Make sure you buy them without any DRM (Digital Rights Management) protection ("plain" audio files).

Why is a cross join classified as an inner join?

hi guys,
searching the web is just confusing me, so maybe someone here could help.
On wikipedia (for join) it says:
An outer join does not require each record in the two joined tables to have a matching record
Now, a cross join does not require any of the records of the table to have a matching record, therefore I would classify it as an outer join. Why then is it classified as an inner join?
thanks

Cross join produces the cross-product. You can not specify cross join condition since there is none - it always implies every row in table1 joined with every row in table2:
SQL> select ename,dname from emp cross join dept on(1=1)
2 /
select ename,dname from emp cross join dept on(1=1)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended
SQL> With outer join you must specify join condition:
SQL> select ename,dname from emp left join dept
2 /
select ename,dname from emp left join dept
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00905: missing keyword
SQL> And join result rules are completely different - matching rows or NULL row.
SY.

I have $8.05 balance on my gift card. I tried to buy an app more expensive than that so i had to add my credit card to the apple account. But I couldn't use the balance from the gift card anymore. How can I select to use it? or did I lose it?

I have $8.05 balance on my gift card. I tried to buy an app more expensive than that so i had to add my credit card to the apple account. But I couldn't use the balance from the gift card anymore. How can I select to use it? or did I lose it?

The Apple Support Communities are an international user to user technical support forum. As a man from Mexico, Spanish is my native tongue. I do not speak English very well, however, I do write in English with the aid of the Mac OS X spelling and grammar checks. I also live in a culture perhaps very very different from your own. When offering advice in the ASC, my comments are not meant to be anything more than helpful and certainly not to be taken as insults.
The MAS should use any credits first and then apply the remainder to a listed bank card.

IStudio in Phuket sell iPad more expensive than announce price

I don't know how this happen but iStudio in Phuket Thailand (Phuket Alpha) sell iPad more expensive than the announce price by THB 500 for every model
ex. iPad 16 GB wifi normally THB 15,900 but they sell at THB 16,400 for cash only and THB 16,892 for credit card
Do you allow Apple Authorized Dealer to sell any product at higher than announce price? This is really ridiculous of how they do business.

deggie wrote:
That is not true, there is nothing illegal about Apple selling the iPad through a web of authorized resellers and specifying a maximum price that can be charged.
And contrary to popular belief of some , the Laws of the USA don;t extend beyond its borders and are thus unenforceable. They cannot bind an overseas buyer to anything.
Apple can of course refuse to supply as you say, but Apple cannot dictate US Laws outside of the US.

I-Book more expensive than Amazon Why????

I am new to Mac technology, I have just bought a Macbook Air; excited about i-Books I went to purchase a book I need the Complete works of Seneca . I was disappointed to find that the Delphi series is much more expensive on i-Book than Amazon Why????

Prices in the iBookstore are set by the publisher (not apple), so ask them.
If you want to buy from Amazon, just download the Kindle app and read them on your Macbook with that.

Why is outer join more expensive than inner joins.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for