In this example, yes, looks like you need a union.
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:44 PM
> Perhaps this small example can make it clear?
> I have two tables, orders and order_to_delete.
> I want to
Perhaps this small example can make it clear?
I have two tables, orders and order_to_delete.
I want to find orders to KEEP - i.e. the order_id is not in table order_to_delete, or
it's in table order_to_delete with a status 'N'.
If I'm using outer joins, I think I need a a union, nicht wahr?
drop
On a general note, this older outer join syntax to simulate a not-in
requires ALL the "b" columns to include the (+) sign, including the
"nvl...", except the "b.cusip is null", which is the not-in itself. If you
miss one, the logic is completely changed.
9i's new syntax does outer-joins by doing t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> create table ani_prx_faster parallel (degree 5) nologging
> as
> select b.*
> from bo_owner_master.ani_prx b,
> bo_owner_stage.ani_prx a
> where a.cusip = b.cusip (+)
>and a.fund_no = b.fund_no (+)
>and a.add_cymd = b.add_c
ECTED]>
> Date: 2003/09/17 Wed PM 02:19:40 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> Well, large sort area size would certainly help, as well as the parallel
> hints.
> As for the bitmap index
:39:49 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: RE: tuning a massive delete Ryan - One solution that is often suggested would be to copy the rows you wish to retain to another table, then truncate the table. Oracle is relatively slow at deletes compared to inserts. Would this method work for you? Dennis Wi
IL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
>
> i tested the minus in the explain plan and the estimate was
> very large. dont i need a lar
t ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> How abuout:
> create table ani_prx_new parallel (degree 5) nologging
> as
> ( select * from ani_prx
> minus
> select * from from bo_owner.ani_prx
> where ba_recode='V')
>
recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> How abuout:
> create table ani_prx_new parallel (degree 5) nologging
> as
> ( select * from ani_prx
> minus
> select * from from bo_owner.ani_prx
> where
gt;
>
>ill try it, but i think exists is faster. we dont
>want to do an index scan here and my hash_area_size
>isnt real big.
>>
>> From: "Richard Ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2003/09/17 Wed PM 12:04:56 EDT
>> To: Multiple recipients of
How abuout:
create table ani_prx_new parallel (degree 5) nologging
as
( select * from ani_prx
minus
select * from from bo_owner.ani_prx
where ba_recode='V')
/
I assume that the description of the bo_owner.ani_prx is identical
to the description of the ani_prx. Furthermore, a bitmap index on
hard Ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/09/17 Wed PM 12:04:56 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> Try anti hash join.
>
> -Original Message-
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17,
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> Try anti hash join.
>
> -Original Message-
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:45 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> i have a table with 27 million records that is about
hash_area_size isnt real big.
>
> From: "Richard Ji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/09/17 Wed PM 12:04:56 EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: tuning a massive delete
>
> Try anti hash join.
>
Try anti hash join.
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:45 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
i have a table with 27 million records that is about 1.2 GB in size. I have a 'staging
table' with 18 million records. 16 million records have a 'delete' flag. I
15 matches
Mail list logo
