Top 60 Oracle Blogs

Recent comments


Match_recognise – 2

In my previous post I presented a warning about the potential cost of sorting and the cost of failing to find a match after each pass of a long search. In a comment on that post Stew Ashton reminded me that the cost of repeatedly trying to find a match starting from “the next row down” could be less of a threat than the cost of “back-tracking” before moving to the next row down.

Taking the example from the previous posting to explain – the requirement was for customers who had executed a transaction in September but not October, and a match_recognize() clause suggested on the ODC (formerly OTN) database forum to implement this requirement was as follows:


In the spirit of Cary Millsap’s comment: “The fastest way to do anything is to not do it at all”, here’s my take (possibly not an original one) on solving problems:

“The best time to solve a problem is before it has happened.”

I spend quite a lot of my “non-contact” time thinking about boundary cases, feature collisions, contention issues, and any other things that could go wrong when you start to implement real systems with (new) Oracle features. The benefit of doing this, of course, is that when I’m looking at a client’s system I can often solve problems because I recognise symptoms that I’ve previously created “in the lab”. The strange thing about this is that there have been times when I’ve pushed Oracle to a breaking point, documented it, and then dismissed the threat because “no one would do that in real life” only to find that someone has done it in real life.