Re: ouch
- From: David Fitzjarrell <oratune@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "njonkers@xxxxxxxxx" <njonkers@xxxxxxxxx>, Oracle L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
I did just that and posted to the list; the "time-saving" function performed 21
more recursive statements than the native function. Wasteful in my book.
David Fitzjarrell
From: Neil Jonkers <njonkers@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Oracle L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: ouch
Hi Stephan
One approach would be to illustrate via autotrace.
Reading from DUAL results in a Full Table Scan if the database version is prior
to 10 g.
Regards
Neil
>>> "Uzzell, Stephan" <SUzzell@xxxxxxxxxx> 08/31/11 10:31 PM >>>
Found a gem in one of my databases today:
FUNCTION "SUBSTRING"
(INSTRING IN varchar2,
STARTPOS IN number,
LENGTH IN number)
RETURN varchar2
IS
RESULT varchar2(8000);
BEGIN
select substr(INSTRING, STARTPOS, LENGTH)
into RESULT
from DUAL;
RETURN(RESULT);
END;
I'm offended by the sheer aesthetics of this. And I want to go yell at the
developers that this is wrong. But I'd need a better argument than that it
offends me. Is there some way to quantify the impact (if any) of wrapping a
built-in function like this?
Stephan Uzzell
All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
