Comments on: Identifying Duplicates: Traditional vs. Analytical. https://technology.amis.nl/2006/05/04/identifying-duplicates-traditional-vs-analytical/ Friends of Oracle and Java Thu, 21 May 2015 20:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 By: Alex Nuijten https://technology.amis.nl/2006/05/04/identifying-duplicates-traditional-vs-analytical/#comment-3215 Sun, 07 May 2006 15:02:21 +0000 http://technology.amis.nl/blog/?p=1181#comment-3215 First of all, thank you for your comments.

To Mr. Ed:
My response to your comment is included in the blog. Because it is not possible to format the TKProf in this comment section (markup is not allowed) I added it to the blog.

To Karl R.:
The database I use on my laptop, where I did these tests is a 10.1.0.2.0 (10g Release 1). It’s the Personal Edition that I have.

]]>
By: Karl r. https://technology.amis.nl/2006/05/04/identifying-duplicates-traditional-vs-analytical/#comment-3214 Fri, 05 May 2006 15:23:00 +0000 http://technology.amis.nl/blog/?p=1181#comment-3214 Very nice article.
You see in RowSource that a window sort does not reduce the number rows as a group by does and that’s what i think the direct write read is probably the storing of the result of the window sort operation in temp.

Greetings
Karl
PS.: which database version you used?

]]>
By: Mr. Ed https://technology.amis.nl/2006/05/04/identifying-duplicates-traditional-vs-analytical/#comment-3213 Fri, 05 May 2006 09:01:33 +0000 http://technology.amis.nl/blog/?p=1181#comment-3213 Something is fishy about your tkprof. Look at this line:

229376 WINDOW SORT (cr=1383 pr=1809 pw=431 time=3154001 us)

The “time” is over 3 seconds. That’s longer than the elapsed time for the entire query!

]]>