Re: RE: Useful Oracle books
- From: Jared.Still@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:10:13 -0700
oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/27/2004 11:52:39 AM:
> I tested the 'where current of' statement extensively last year and
> it was always took me about twice as long to do an
> update(particularly a batch update) than with straight sql. Can
> someone show me a repeatable case where you want to use pl/sql over
> sql? It's all over asktom that you should use sql if at all possible.
>
> Until I Actually see some repeatable cases, in my opinion pl/sql is
> always slower than sql.
>
It isn't currently in my best interest to build a test case for this.
ie. I have too much to do.
I would have to examine the section of Tom's book that mentions this
to comment further.
In my case, 'where current' of was very efficient, as doing the
job in straight SQL would have required many SQL statements, as
oppposed to some procedural code and two cursors.
If you can do it in one SQL statement, yeah, it's a no-brainer.
Other than that may require some testing.
Jared
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
