It seems to have been the Bug 34381258
În mie., 1 mai 2024 la 12:14, Jonathan Lewis <jlewisoracle@xxxxxxxxx> a
scris:
I was a little puzzled that this was a reply to a reference I'd made to a
very old blog note, but then I realised it was address to Yudhi S.
@yudhi s <learnerdatabase99@xxxxxxxxx>
I'd be interested to hear if the issue has been identified and eliminated
and, if so, how.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 11:02, Laurentiu Oprea <laurentiu.oprea06@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello,
Did you find the root cause of this issue after all?
Thanks.
În vin., 18 nov. 2022 la 11:41, Jonathan Lewis <jlewisoracle@xxxxxxxxx>
a scris:
Here's the link to the article in case you do want to read it:
https://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/analytic-agony/
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 09:38, Jonathan Lewis <jlewisoracle@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
By the way, rewriting the code is the correct option; you don't really
want to sort 10 billion rows down to 100 million if you can get rid of most
of those rows first; and if you can't reduce the number of rows perhaps you
can rearrange the joins to reduce the length of the rows and pick up the
rest of the required columns later.
Here's a quote from a very old blog note I wrote about a bug (fixed by
11.2.0.4):
" Since then I’ve always warned people to be a little careful about how
they use analytic functions because of the amount of sorting they can
introduce. My suggestion has always been to crunch *“large”* volumes
of data down to *“small”* volumes of data before applying any analytic
functions to add *“intelligence”* to the intermediate result."
The article might still be worth reading because it talks about how I
investigated what the analytic sort was doing