Re: performance question

  • From: Joan Hsieh <joan.hsieh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Alvaro Jose Fernandez <alvaro.fernandez@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:57:26 -0400

I think I found the problem. This is really a sql statement issue, not a performance puzzle. Although I didn't confirm it yet.

QA was cloned on early Aug, TRN was cloned on last week. The sql statement is asking the data for the data range from 8/15 to 8/31. On QA, there is no data to return in the merge join/hash join steps. So no wonder it works on QA and not on TRN.


Alvaro Jose Fernandez wrote:

ah, I understand now.

Joan, one last question. Have you tried then to equal the PGA size on
both?... (sorry this seems so stupid, but nopw I really cannot think of
other explanation aside different temp area capacity for the hash)


The id=27, on TRN it retuns 0 while it returns 31,967 rows on QA is

_understandable, cause on TRN it failed and it never reached that far.


Other related posts: