Links
Home
Oracle DBA Forum
Frequent Oracle Errors
TNS:could not resolve the connect identifier specified
Backtrace message unwound by exceptions
invalid identifier
PL/SQL compilation error
internal error
missing expression
table or view does not exist
end-of-file on communication channel
TNS:listener unknown in connect descriptor
insufficient privileges
PL/SQL: numeric or value error string
TNS:protocol adapter error
ORACLE not available
target host or object does not exist
invalid number
unable to allocate string bytes of shared memory
resource busy and acquire with NOWAIT specified
error occurred at recursive SQL level string
ORACLE initialization or shutdown in progress
archiver error. Connect internal only, until freed
snapshot too old
unable to extend temp segment by string in tablespace
Credential retrieval failed
missing or invalid option
invalid username/password; logon denied
unable to create INITIAL extent for segment
out of process memory when trying to allocate string bytes
shared memory realm does not exist
cannot insert NULL
TNS:unable to connect to destination
remote database not found'>ora-02019
exception encountered: core dump
inconsistent datatypes
no data found
TNS:operation timed out
PL/SQL: could not find program
existing state of packages has been discarded
maximum number of processes exceeded
error signaled in parallel query server
ORACLE instance terminated. Disconnection forced
TNS:packet writer failure
see ORA-12699
missing right parenthesis
name is already used by an existing object
cannot identify/lock data file
invalid file operation
quoted string not properly terminated
to_number question

to_number question

2004-07-16       - By Poras, Henry R.

Reply:     <<     51     52     53     54     55     56     57     58     59     60     >>  

Jonathan,

Funny, but I reach the opposite conclusion from the same starting point. This
behavior of the optimizer will totally free us from considering what the
optimizer does. We just need to phrase the query correctly. If we ask the right
question (that 's the tricky part) and make no assumptions about the physical
execution of that query, we need not consider the physical access path at all.

Henry


-- --Original Message-- --
From: oracle-l-bounce@(protected)
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)]On Behalf Of Jonathan Gennick
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 9:32 AM
To: Stephen.Lee@(protected)
Cc: oracle-l@(protected)
Subject: Re[2]: to_number question



JG >* Related to the above, it would now seem that in order to
JG >write a statement containing a subquery, that you must be
JG >aware of, and think about, how that statement 's execution is
JG >optimized. Yet databases are supposed to free us from
JG >worrying about optimization and physical access and the
JG >like.


Best regards,

Jonathan Gennick --- Brighten the corner where you are
http://Gennick.com * 906.387.1698 * mailto:jonathan@(protected)

Join the Oracle-article list and receive one
article on Oracle technologies per month by
email. To join, visit http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/oracle-article,
or send email to Oracle-article-request@(protected) and
include the word "subscribe " in either the subject or body.


Friday, July 16, 2004, 3:59:11 AM, Stephen.Lee@(protected) (Stephen.Lee@(protected))
wrote:
> > -- --Original Message-- --
> > Actually the subquery gets converted to a sql that has two predicates
> > grouped by "AND " (similar to yours).

SLDC > Well OK. I 've kept my mouth shut so far, and because I was getting some
SLDC > good info, I did not argue with the accusations that I "don 't understand ".
SLDC > But I think it 's time to clarify some things.

SLDC > I DO understand 100%, and (if I may be so bold as to speak for others)
those
SLDC > who have questioned the so-called logic understood 100%.

SLDC > Yes. I 'm very well aware that my SQL was essentially getting broken into
SLDC > two predicates and THEN the un-guaranteed order in the evaluation of
SLDC > predicates gets applied. The people who argued that this should not be
the
SLDC > case understood it too. The comments were an expression of disbelief (not
SLDC > lack of understanding) that the specifications concerning subqueries would
SLDC > be so loose and open ended as to allow this level of unpredictability.
SLDC > Clearly, that is the case. But that doesn 't mean we can 't bitch about it.
SLDC > And bitching about it doesn 't mean we don 't understand it. You bitch
about
SLDC > taxes, don 't you?

SLDC > -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
SLDC > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
SLDC > -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
SLDC > To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@(protected)
SLDC > put 'unsubscribe ' in the subject line.
SLDC > --
SLDC > Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
SLDC > FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
SLDC > -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --

-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@(protected)
put 'unsubscribe ' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@(protected)
put 'unsubscribe ' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --