Re: ALL_SYNONYMS versus USER_SYNONYMS
- From: Mohamed Houri <mohamed.houri@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Hemant-K.Chitale@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:58:25 +0200
This is why I wanted them to change the following sql
*SQL ordered by Gets*
*Buffer Gets*
*Executions*
*Gets per Exec*
*%Total*
*Elapsed Time (s)*
*%CPU*
*%IO*
*SQL Id*
*SQL Text*
130,036,976
620
209,737.06
16.31
267.71
99.4
0
*4gqwzrdwrccrq*
<file:///C:\01Mhouri\02%20Mhouri%20Infrabel\05%20Bill%20In\AWR-Acc%20Audit\AWR%20Rpt%20-%20IOA0231A%20Problematic.html#4gqwzrdwrccrq>
SELECT COUNT(1) FROM DUAL WHER...
SELECT COUNT(1) FROM DUAL WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM ALL_SYNONYMS WHERE
SYNONYM_NAME = :B1 AND OWNER = USER)
*By*
SELECT COUNT(1) FROM DUAL WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM USER_SYNONYMS WHERE
SYNONYM_NAME = :B1);
And I don’t see any issue with what I proposed them to do (hence my
question).
Of course I said that they have better to get rid of those calls because
they have nothing to do with the application business. The raison for which
they have implemented such a call being not persuasive at all I renounced
to share it with you here.
Thanks a lot for your answers.
2014-09-17 4:47 GMT+02:00 Chitale, Hemant K <Hemant-K.Chitale@xxxxxx>:
> Interesting !
>
>
>
> Hemant K Chitale
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Yong Huang [mailto:yong321@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:03 PM
> *To:* Chitale, Hemant K
> *Cc:* oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: ALL_SYNONYMS versus USER_SYNONYMS
>
>
>
> > I have developers who prefer to use the ALL_% views (e.g. ALL_TABLES)
> > even when I tell them to use the USER_% views (USER_TABLES).
> > Must be something in their prior experiences that "taught" them to use
> > the ALL_% views !
>
>
>
> Actually, at least in 10gR2 (I think it's 10.2.0.4), I find that
> all_tables or dba_tables where owner='...' is cheaper in buffer gets than
> user_tables. I documented the whole story here
>
>
>
> http://yong321.freeshell.org/oranotes/User_tablesVsAll_tables.txt
>
>
>
> Not sure if that's true of xxx_synonyms or whether that's still the case
> in 11g and up.
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies
> and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the
> incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank
> and their subsidiaries at https://www.sc.com/en/incorporation-details.html
> .
>
--
Houri Mohamed
Oracle DBA-Developer-Performance & Tuning
Member of Oraworld-team <http://www.oraworld-team.com/>
Visit My - Blog <http://www.hourim.wordpress.com/>
Let's Connect -
<http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/mohamed-houri/11/329/857/>*Linkedin
Profile <http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/mohamed-houri/11/329/857/>*
My Twitter <https://twitter.com/MohamedHouri> - MohamedHouri
<https://twitter.com/MohamedHouri>
Other related posts:
