Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables

From: "Connor McDonald" <mcdonald.connor@xxxxxxxxx>
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:33:18 +0800

Sheesh, people are really keen on bagging the CBO...Hell, we all know
its trivial to produce scenarios where the CBO will get it wrong
(inter-column dependencies always being a common one)..

But a little humility please...I've also had many times where I've
seen a plan and thought..."Nah, CBO has got it wrong"...so I hint it
in the way that I think will be best, and guess what, my option sucks
and the CBO's choice was better...Man, we all stay quiet on that one
don't we...

:-)

--
Connor McDonald
===========================
email: connor_mcdonald@xxxxxxxxx
web:   http://www.oracledba.co.uk

"Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat"
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

References:

RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Laimutis . Nedzinskas

RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Wolfgang Breitling

Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Mladen Gogala

Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Niall Litchfield

Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Wolfgang Breitling

Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
From: Niall Litchfield

Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables

Other related posts: