Discussions
Categories
- 382.6K All Categories
- 2.1K Data
- 212 Big Data Appliance
- 1.9K Data Science
- 448.4K Databases
- 221.1K General Database Discussions
- 3.7K Java and JavaScript in the Database
- 25 Multilingual Engine
- 541 MySQL Community Space
- 469 NoSQL Database
- 7.8K Oracle Database Express Edition (XE)
- 2.9K ORDS, SODA & JSON in the Database
- 499 SQLcl
- 3.9K SQL Developer Data Modeler
- 186.3K SQL & PL/SQL
- 21.1K SQL Developer
- 293.8K Development
- 7 Developer Projects
- 129 Programming Languages
- 290.5K Development Tools
- 96 DevOps
- 3K QA/Testing
- 645.6K Java
- 24 Java Learning Subscription
- 36.9K Database Connectivity
- 151 Java Community Process
- 104 Java 25
- 22.1K Java APIs
- 137.9K Java Development Tools
- 165.3K Java EE (Java Enterprise Edition)
- 17 Java Essentials
- 146 Java 8 Questions
- 85.9K Java Programming
- 79 Java Puzzle Ball
- 65.1K New To Java
- 1.7K Training / Learning / Certification
- 13.8K Java HotSpot Virtual Machine
- 94.2K Java SE
- 13.8K Java Security
- 200 Java User Groups
- 24 JavaScript - Nashorn
- Programs
- 290 LiveLabs
- 36 Workshops
- 10.2K Software
- 6.7K Berkeley DB Family
- 3.5K JHeadstart
- 5.8K Other Languages
- 2.3K Chinese
- 168 Deutsche Oracle Community
- 1.2K Español
- 1.9K Japanese
- 234 Portuguese
Order clause conditioned by value
Answers
-
Thanks AndyH,
I made the changes in the order clause but no change in the query.
I think the problem is when is evaluation each order and even with the indexes created takes a lot of time.
Thanks again!!
-
No problem! Did you create descending indexes to match the UPDATED and NEWFIRST sort orders? Also, you might need a function-based index to deal with your NAME sort.
You don't mention how big the report is that you return, if it's large then sorting may be occurring on disk and that will be slow.
It would be interesting to see explain plan for your queries.
-
-
Hi fac586,
Your last message has an error rendering rich post.
Thanks
-
Hi Andy,
The query result is about 40,000 and table has 249,000 records
Thanks
-
I can't see any sort options in the given SQL.
I'd guess that the database has decided that there are no advantages to using the indexes for sorting, possibly given the number of rows returned compared to the overall rowset. Also, the indexes are often only used when requesting a 'first rows' result set.
