RE: Function based indexes?
- From: "David Kurtz" <info2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Oracle Mailing List" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 01:46:37 -0000
I am quite rightly taken to task. My example was produced on 9.2.0.5.0 on
Windows.
I used analyze because I was being lazy. However, I have now checked
dbms_stats on both 9.2.0.5 and 10.1.0.3 and got the same behaviour.
But, why would cursor_sharing make any difference?
regards
_________________________
David Kurtz
Go-Faster Consultancy Ltd.
tel: +44 (0)7771 760660
fax: +44 (0)7092 348865
web: www.go-faster.co.uk
mailto:david.kurtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Book: PeopleSoft for the Oracle DBA: http://www.psftdba.com
PeopleSoft DBA Forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psftdba
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Drake [mailto:bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 07 December 2005 01:16
> To: info2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Function based indexes?> David,
>
> That's an excellent example, but its missing a bit of information.
> You didn't specify what version of Oracle you were working with.
>
> Also, you used analyze table compute statistics instead of issuring a
> call to dbms_stats.
> I think that Jonathan's examples have me a bit spoiled. :)
>
> I've used the function-based index as duct tape approach until the app
> code could be fixed. I'm interested in using the approach that you
> describe above instead, but I'm going to have to see how it works when
> cursor_sharing!='EXACT'. I have a feeling that it won't be pretty.
>
> thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Drake
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts: