I have a query with order by clause, which takes 30 sec to execute with order by clause. And if i remove the order by clause it executes within 1 sec.
The column in the order by condition has index. but when i see Explain plan output. it doesn't show this index is being used. I tried to execute query with INDEX hint but still explain plan is not showing this index.
Which step in the following plan is the first step of execution
I reckon it is "TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE"
Is that correct?
In the "Predicate Information (identified by operation id):"
section the predicates - access and filter for the step "TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES" are displayed first
Isn't there any relation between the order of execution steps and the order in which predicates are displayed?
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 538700484
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | |
| 2 | HASH GROUP BY | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2364 | 14 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2313 | 13 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 5 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2281 | 12 (9)| 00:00:01 |
| 6 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 2255 | 11 (10)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 175 | 6 (17)| 00:00:01 |
|* 8 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 12 | 612 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 9 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES | 43 | 5332 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | | 1 | 2080 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 154 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 103 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE | 1 | 32 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_BBS_1 | 3 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DAILY_CHECK | 1 | 71 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_SEARCH | 1 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 17 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 18 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_IAM_SR_NO | 1 | 26 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 19 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 32 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 20 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For a hash join statement, is it beneficial to have the join condition objects in the index as well as the objects in the where clause?
View 19 Replies View RelatedPerformance issues with the below mentioned sql.After gone through execution plan we have found out the reason but we couldn't able to change the execution plan the way we want.
If we could able to join
HRMGR.HR_EXPANDED_BOOK table with MISBOMGR.ibm_client_mgr7_empid, MISBOMGR.ibm_client_mgr6_empid at earlier stage means before HRMGR.HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP then my issue will be solved but somehow optimizer is not considering that path. Even i have added push_subq hint which will push sub queries to execute at earlier stage but no use. Why push_subq hint is not working in this scenario and what can be the other alternative to change the driving path.
Query :-
select /*+ push_subq */CEMP.EMP_ID,
CEMP.EMP_STATUS_CD,
EMP_STATUS_DESC,
MGR_6_EMP_ID,
MGR_7_EMP_ID
FROM
[code]........
Execution plan :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | Inst |IN-OUT|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 16958 | 927K| 12008 (2)| 00:02:25 | | |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | | | |
| 2 | MERGE JOIN OUTER | | 173K| 9511K| 12008 (2)| 00:02:25 | | |
| 3 | REMOTE | HR_EXPANDED_BOOK | 173K| 7303K| 12005 (2)| 00:02:25 | INFODB | R->S |
|* 4 | SORT JOIN | | 11 | 143 | 3 (34)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 5 | REMOTE | HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP | 11 | 143 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | INFODB | R->S |
|* 6 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID | 1 | 8 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
|* 7 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID | 1 | 8 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ USE_HASH ("IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID") */ 0 FROM
"MISBOMGR"."IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID" "IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID" WHERE "MGR_7_EMP_ID"=:B1) OR EXISTS
(SELECT 0 FROM "MISBOMGR"."IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID" "IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID" WHERE "MGR_6_EMP_ID"=:B2))
4 - access("CEMP"."EMP_STATUS_CD"="EMPLU"."EMP_STATUS_CD"(+))
filter("CEMP"."EMP_STATUS_CD"="EMPLU"."EMP_STATUS_CD"(+))
6 - filter("MGR_7_EMP_ID"=:B1)
7 - filter("MGR_6_EMP_ID"=:B1)
Remote SQL Information (identified by operation id):
----------------------------------------------------
3 - SELECT "EMP_ID","EMP_STATUS_CD","MGR_6_EMP_ID","MGR_7_EMP_ID" FROM
"HRMGR"."HR_EXPANDED_BOOK" "SYS_ALIAS_2" WHERE "EMP_STATUS_CD"='P' (accessing 'INFODB' )
5 - SELECT "EMP_STATUS_CD","EMP_STATUS_DESC" FROM "HRMGR"."HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP" "EMPLU"
(accessing 'INFODB' )
when am trying to use nvl for one condition it is taking lot of time to execute but when am removing nvl function then the query executing in 2 min. condition is given below
(HOI2.ORG_INFORMATION1)=nvl(TO_CHAR(:p_set_of_books_id) , HOI2.ORG_INFORMATION1)
but when am using the same condition as below the querry executing in 2 min
(HOI2.ORG_INFORMATION1)=TO_CHAR(:p_set_of_books_id)
my query given below
(SELECT cust.customer_number cust_no, cust.customer_name customer,
cnv.item_no, SUM(wd.shipped_quantity) shp_qty_nos,
0 rtn_qty_nos,
ROUND(SUM(cnv.cnf * wd.shipped_quantity), 3) shp_qty_tons,
0 rtn_qty_tons, 0 net_shp_qty_nos, 0 net_shp_qty_tons
[code]...
How to avoid sort operation by an order by clause without changing the sort area size.what hints or changes should be done in query so that order by clause work faster.
View 10 Replies View RelatedI came across situation where a Nullable column is not using index for 'order by' clause. I added Not Null condition in the 'where' condition but it wasn't useful. I don't wanted to make composite index with not nullable column or with constant or modify column to 'Not Null'
So I carried out test cases and during which I found that in one case the sql statement does 'fast full scan' for data access but does not use index for 'order by' sorting
here are the steps
Initially I kept the column Nullable
SQL> create sequence s5;
Sequence created.
SQL> create table t5 as select s5.nextval id,a.* from dba_objects a where rownum<1001;
Table created.
SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';
SQL> create index i5 on t5(id);
Index created.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'T5',cascade=>true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
exit
SQL> alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever, level 12';
select *
from
t5 where id is not null order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.00 0 16 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=4771 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1157 us)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 49.49 49.72
********************************************************************************
select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t where id is not null order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=5167 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3141 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 69 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 69 22.89 28.04
Now I modified the 'id' column to Not Null
SQL> alter table t5 modify id not null;
SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';
COLUMN_NAME N
------------------------------ -
ID N
OWNER Y
OBJECT_NAME Y
SUBOBJECT_NAME Y
OBJECT_ID Y
DATA_OBJECT_ID Y
OBJECT_TYPE Y
CREATED Y
LAST_DDL_TIME Y
TIMESTAMP Y
STATUS Y
TEMPORARY Y
GENERATED Y
SECONDARY Y
14 rows selected.
select *
from
t5 order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.01 0 29 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.01 0 45 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=2398 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1152 us)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 37.74 37.91
********************************************************************************
select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=4166 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3142 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 8.28 8.45
select id
from
t5 order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1342 us)
1000 INDEX FAST FULL SCAN I5 (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1093 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 1.88 1.89
Questions are
1) Why adding 'where id is not null wasn't enough for the index to get used in 'order by'?
2) While we got 'fast full scan' why index wasn't used for 'order by' clause?
3) Do we need the indexed column in where clause for being used in 'order by clause' too?
4) Do we need 'order by' clause if we are selecting only the indexed column with sequence generated values?
What value should i set for sga_target in my oracle 10g database?
Currently -
sga_max_size = 32GB
pga_aggregate_target = 6GB
RAM on server = 64 GB
I'll need to disable db_block_buffers parameters in order to enable sga_target. right?
I have a table that partitioned into six partitions. each partitions placed in different table space and every two table space placed it on a different hardisk
when I will do query select with the non-partition keys condition, how the search process ? whether the sequence (scan sequentially from partition 1 to partition 6) or partition in a hardisk is accessed at the same time with other partition in other hardisk. ( in the image, partition 1,4 accessed at the same time with partition 2,5 and 3,6)
I have below tables,
describe rpthead
Name Null Type
--------------------------- -------- -------------
RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER
RPTDATE NOT NULL DATE
RPTD_BY NOT NULL VARCHAR2(25)
PRODUCT_ID NOT NULL NUMBER
describe rptbody
Name Null Type
------------- -------- -------------
RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER
LINENO NOT NULL NUMBER
COMMENTS VARCHAR2(240)
UPD_DATE DATE
The fact is that we store some header in RPTHEAD and store real data in RPTBODY, the question is that if I use below SQL to query all data for a 'PRODUCT_ID'.
SELECT t0.LINENO, t0.COMMENTS, t0.RPTNO, t0.UPD_DATE
FROM RPTBODY t0 , RPTHEAD rpthead
WHERE
(
t0.RPTNO = rpthead.RPTNO
AND
t0.UPD_DATE>=to_date('1970/01/01 00:00:00','YYYY/MM/DD hh24:mi:ss')
AND
rpthead.PRODUCT_ID IN ('4647')
)
I do not want to have 'ORDER by' clause since data set is too large, the sorting takes long time, is there any way to get the result rows in the order sorted by RPTNO? We have the index for RPTNO on RPTBODY.
Looking to understand the difference between instance tuning and database tuning.
What is the difference between these two tuning exercises? I understand that an instance is memory based structures (logical) where as database consists of physical structures.
However, how does one tune a database the physical structure? Does it have to do with file placements/block sizes etc. Would you agree that a lot of that is taken care by ASM now in 11g? What tools are required/available (third party as well as oracle supplied) for these types of tuning scenarios?
I have two tables with 113M records in DWH_BILL_DET & 103M in prd_rerate_chg_que and Im running following merge query, which is running for 13 hrs to update records, which is quiet longer time.
SQL> explain plan for MERGE /*+ parallel (rq, 16) */
INTO DWH_BILL_DET rq
USING (SELECT rated_que_rowid,
detail_rerate_flag_code,
rerate_sel_key,
[code].....
There is a simple way to increase the performance of a query by reducing the row-size of the table it hits. I used it in the past by dividing the table into smaller parts and querying respective smaller table in each query.
what is this method called ? just forgot the method and can't recall it. what this type of row-reduction optimization is called ?
Its a very small query
SELECT * from EMPLOY
WHERE fk_dept_id IN ( select id
from DEPARTMENT
ORDER BY END_DT DESC)
I cant use IN.
NOTE: Select * should be done from Employ only no joins and all.
oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.6.0 - 64bit Production
PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.6.0 - Production
"CORE 11.1.0.6.0 Production"
I have data like:-
event_idiss_nbr
171350 2012051WR
171350 2012041WR
171350 2011081CC
171350 2012041WA
171350 2012031WW
171350 2011081WW
171350 2011081CR
171350 2011081CA
The possible last two characters of the iss_nbr can be:-
WW, WR,WA,CR,CA,CC
And I want it to be ORDER BY as follows.
WR
WA
CR
CA
WW
CC
So for example, in above case, it should be
event_idiss_nbr
171350 2012051WR
171350 2012041WR
171350 2012041WA
171350 2012031WW
171350 2011081CR
171350 2011081CA
171350 2011081WW
171350 2011081CC
How can I do it while loading the table?
I am having table without any primary key. In this table, only inserts and deletes are performed , no update operation.
Is it safe to use order by rowid on such a table ? Does by applying order rowid, is it possible to check order in which rows were inserted in this table ?
I have EMPLOYEE table that have 3 records with EMP_ID 1, 2, 3. Now I want to run below query
select emp_id from employee where emp_id in (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
It will return only 3 records but i want those records also which is not available in employee table. Is this possible without using another table or creating another table. Actually I don't have enough privileges to create table.
& want output like below
EMP_ID
1
2
3
4 Not Found
5 Not Found
Here emp_id 4, 5 is not available in employee table, but query should return those value also with comments like "Not Found"
I need to check somewhere in the code as " Check the variable with in 20 varaiables , if not excute somes statements"
Example
a1=20,a2=30,a3=40......a20=200; (Like this way i have 20 varaibles with values)
v1=150;
if( v1<>a1 AND V1<> a2 AND V1 <> a3...... AND V1<>20)
execute some insert block;
End if;
But it's writting very diffcult as i need to compare with 20 varaiables.Was there any alternative sloution like taking some VARRAY and checking in IF condition like v1 NOT IN(Va) (Where 'Va' is like VARRAY)
I am facing an issue in union clause
Below is my query Issue faced is that based on union I want to limit the result and does not want second query to give duplicate result as both queries deal with same table
SELECT TAB1.ID, TAB1.CRNCY_CODE, TAB2.SCHEME_CODE, DECODE( 'INFENG',CAST( '' AS VARCHAR(20)),
NVL(TAB2.ALT1_SCHEME_DESC,TAB2.SCHEME_DESC),TAB2.SCHEME_DESC),
TAB1.SUB_HEAD_CODE, DECODE( 'INFENG' ,CAST( '' AS VARCHAR(20)),NVL(TAB1.ALT1_SUB_HEAD_DESC ,
TAB1.SUB_HEAD_DESC),TAB1.SUB_HEAD_DESC)
[code]...
select null ID,null crncy_code,TAB2.SCHEME_CODE ,
NVL(TAB2.ALT1_SCHEME_DESC,TAB2.SCHEME_DESC),TAB2.SCHEME_DESC,null SUB_HEAD_CODE from TAB2 where TAB2.SCHEME_TYPE ='SCHEME1';
[CODE]
i have small requirement
case when type=1 then max(col2) else end
case when type=2 then max(col2) else end
i wanted to have difference 2 timestamp
type(datatype- numeric)
col2(datatype-timestamp)
all it should be in one select condition
I am using Oracle 8i.
Below is my query...
In the below 2 tables the records are like...
Table_1
IDNameCode
1AII
1AMNET
1AAXIS
1AUAT
2BMNET
2BUAT
2BUTC
3CMNET
3CII
3CUTC
Table_2
IDName
1AAA
2BBB
3CCC
4DDD
When i execute below query with using (NOT IN & IN) i am getting same result..
select * from Table_2 where id in
(select * from Table_1
where SRVC_PROV_CDE not in ('MNET', 'II', 'AXIS', 'UAT'))
Result:
IDName
1A
2B
select * from Table_2 where id in
(select * from Table_1
where SRVC_PROV_CDE in ('MNET', 'II', 'AXIS', 'UAT'))
Result:
IDName
1A
2B
When we execute the 1 query above it should not show 1 and 2 records...as i am using NOT IN condition.
I had a procedure in which there will be multiple update and select statements Eg: Update table T1 set Column1='X' where Column2 in ('A','B','C') All the update/select queries will have same set of values in the in condition ('A','B','C') will remain same. But the tables and columns will vary.So, I would like to declare a variable/array which holds the values in the in condition
var1 := {'A','B','C'}
and use in my statement like :-
Update table T1 set Column1='X' where Column2 in var1. Is there any way to acheive this?
I would like to use REGEXP_LIKE condition expression with '[:alnum:]' operator in Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.2.0 for to check the string is alphanumeric or not.Why do i need: I have xinput field [RAW(24)] which not sure to contains always an alphanumeric string. We should use only when xinput field is an alphanumeric string.
x varchar2(50);
x:=rtrim(ltrim(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(xinput)));
how should i use REGEXP_LIKE
select 'TRUE' from dual where REGEXP_LIKE( 'True', '[:alnum:]')
select 'TRUE' from dual where REGEXP_LIKE( 'False%*^tt123.***', '[:alnum:]')
I'm passing some parameters from java code to a query as follows:
select * from table1
where col1 = 'yes'
--want to make this part dynamic
*$[variable]*
where the $[variable] = 'and col2 like ''some%'' and col3 = ''good'''
So this query is giving me an error saying that it cannot construct such query because i guess what it's trying to run is:
select * from table1
where col1 = 'yes'
*'and col2 like ''some%'' and col3 = ''good'''*
I need to remove the first and last single quote... I tried using double quote for my string and replace all single quotes with empty but the "LIKE" function only works with single quotes (like 'some%')..
I also tried using:
select * from table1
where col1 = 'yes'
and trim (both '''' from 'col2 like ''some%'' and col3 = ''good''')
but i get a "ORA-00920: invalid relational operator"...
How oracle retrieves data from a table.like let say a table product as
create table product(id number,name varchar2(10))
table product dont have any index on it
now if this table conatain 500 rows and we have two query
1. select * from product where id=26
2. select * from product
does both query take same time or first query will execute in less time since it has where condition
I want to run multiple sql select command after loggin to sqlplus and need to pass the value to variable to check the condition.
When I am running the below script I am getting the below error
----------------------
SP2-0734: unknown command beginning "return :va..." - rest of line ignored.
SP2-0734: unknown command beginning "return :va..." - rest of line ignored.
a2.sh: test: argument expected
------------------------
Example:
sqlplus -s system/SYSTEM_PASS << EOF
set pages 0
set head off
[Code].....
In a query which gets executed first:
Select clause or Order by clause? First the columns specified in the select clause are fetched and then ordered or is it the vice -versa? In a query if a psuedo-column rownum is selected, then if we use order by on the rownum column, what happens?
What would be the output of the following query and why?Which part of the query is first executed, is it select clause or order by clause?
select empno,ename,rownum from emp order by rownum desc;
I am having trouble with tab order on a Form.
I rearranged the fields on a form, so I want the tab order to be different. I rearranged the fields in the object navigator to be in the order I want them to tab. I made sure the Previous Navigation Item and Next Navigation Item were set to null for all the fields.
Still it keeps the old tab order.
I also tried explicitly specifying the Previous Navigation Item and Next Navigation Item. Same thing, it kept the old tab order before I rearranged the fields. Previous Navigation Item and Next Navigation Item are both null.
There are no triggers on these fields. All fields are in the same block. I am using Oracle Form Builder version 9.
I have a column named "col1" with datatype "varchar2(10)" and row wise entries like "1,1A, 2,3...,10,2A,..." like. I want to order it like "1, 1A ,2,2A, 2B,3... 10...".I tried it with to_number() but it gives me
1,10,11,2,....like that.
I have requirement to create an XML structure through stored procedure. I need to Order some of the columns in ascending order before I format them into the xml structure. I am pretty novice to creating an output into XML format, but attached is the query I came up with (without order by). This works perfect, but now the requirement is to order by - cls_cd, and within cls_cd, again order by - cat_cd. I am not able to do this.
View 2 Replies View Related