NAME SHARABLE_MEM ----------- ------------ TEST_PLSQL1 185607 TEST_PLSQL5 9123
A lot of junk, right? :)
PL/SQL engine works with interpretive code, it does not have any optimizations -- here I do simplify, so do not consider this statement as an absolute truth -- like, e.g. most of the C compilers have. It has its own rules that are not clear, usually. dbms_profiler won't help here (It could mislead, however. For a good example see recent post of Raj), IMHO. As I told:
"I would suggest to consider some simple things:
. standard Oracle and your application's package(s) dependencies . proper datatypes usage "
These two things are simple but important.
So, I would sugget to change it to (sorry for dirty coding):
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE test
IS
PROCEDURE test_plsql2 (
var1 in out varchar2
, var2 in out varchar2
, out1 in out varchar2
, out2 in out varchar2
);
END;
/
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY test
ISpat1 CONSTANT varchar2(1000) := '%tttttttttttttttttt%'; pat2 CONSTANT varchar2(1000) := 'lllllllllllllllllllllll'; pat3 CONSTANT varchar2(1000) := '%dfddddddddddddddddddiii%'; pat4 CONSTANT varchar2(1000) := 'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy';
ls VARCHAR2(1000); b1 BOOLEAN; b2 BOOLEAN;
PROCEDURE test_plsql2 (
var1 in out varchar2
, var2 in out varchar2
, out1 in out varchar2
, out2 in out varchar2
);
beginif false
then
b1 := var1 LIKE pat3;
b2 := var2 LIKE pat1;
--
if b1
then
if b2
then
ls := pat2;
else
ls := pat4;
end if;
end if;
..
out1 := ls;
END;or something alike, hope you get the idea. On my system it gives: 00:01:28.12 vs 00:00:08.60.
When I looked at the C code generated by the native compilation, I was not very pleased the way native compilation works.
I think this statement of yours does answer your original question -- bad PL/SQL coding --> bad NC results.
HTH, -- Vladimir Begun The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.
Khedr, Waleed wrote:
[...]Below are two dummy procs that are good enough to explain the issue (Jared forgive me for posting this big code). All the code in proc test_plsql1 is inside an IF clause that will not run.
proc test_3 ran 30 million times in 9 minutes while test_2 ran in 20 minutes. Also test_2 required more CPU resources while running.
Also I tried native compilation, which did not do a lot (only 10 % faster). When I looked at the C code generated by the native compilation, I was not very pleased the way native compilation works.
Does anybody have a clue why?
I tried to include the proc in a package and pin it but there was no difference.
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Vladimir Begun INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
