FAST_FORWARD Cursor

Hi Experts,
(1) Will there be any considerable performance gain in
using the default cursor type (FORWARD_ONLY) over
FAST_FORWARD cursors. Cursors are used in my application
as READ ONLY source of data.
(2) Will the use of GOTO inside a SP degrade performance?
Kindly suggest.
TIA,
HariOn Wed, 4 Aug 2004 05:02:01 -0700, Hari wrote:

>Hi Experts,
>(1) Will there be any considerable performance gain in
>using the default cursor type (FORWARD_ONLY) over
>FAST_FORWARD cursors. Cursors are used in my application
>as READ ONLY source of data.
>(2) Will the use of GOTO inside a SP degrade performance?
>Kindly suggest.
>TIA,
>Hari
Hi Hari,
(1) No. FORWARD_ONLY is implied by FAST_FORWARD. There will be a
performance gain in using a set-based solution over a cursor based
solution, if possible.
(2) No.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Hugo,
Could you please tell me what is the SET-based solution?
Thanks,
Hari

>--Original Message--
>On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 05:02:01 -0700, Hari wrote:
>
>Hi Hari,
>(1) No. FORWARD_ONLY is implied by FAST_FORWARD. There
will be a
>performance gain in using a set-based solution over a
cursor based
>solution, if possible.
>(2) No.
>Best, Hugo
>--
>(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>.
>|||On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 05:31:30 -0700, Hari wrote:

>Hugo,
>Could you please tell me what is the SET-based solution?
>Thanks,
>Hari
Hi Hari,
Without knowing what your current cursor-based solution actually does?
No.
But if you post DDL (create table statements, including all constraints
but excluding irrelevant columns), sample data (as INSERT statements),
expected output, your current cursor-based SQL and a description of the
business problem you're trying to solve, I could give it a shot.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)