11gR2

Chris Antognini's picture

When CURSOR_SHARING=FORCE, Does Literal Replacement Always Take Place?

The concept of cursor sharing is simple. If an application executes SQL statements containing literals and if cursor sharing is enabled (i.e. CURSOR_SHARING=FORCE), the database engine automatically replaces the literals with bind variables. Thanks to these replacements, hard parses might be turned into soft parses for the SQL statements that differ only in the literals.

The question raised by the title of this post is: in case cursor sharing is enabled, does literal replacement always take place?

The short answer is no.

I’m aware of three cases where it doesn’t take place. The first two cases are summarized by the following note that I published in the second edition of Troubleshooting Oracle Performance (page 434).

randolf.geist's picture

Combining Features - Wrong Results With Scalar Subquery Caching

Quite often you can get into trouble with Oracle when you start combining different features.In this case of one my clients it is the combination of user-defined PL/SQL functions that can raise exceptions (think of currency conversion and a non-existent currency code gets passed into the function), DML error logging and attempting to improve performance by wrapping the PL/SQL function call into a scalar subquery to benefit from the built-in scalar subquery caching feature of the SQL runtime engine.As long as the scalar subquery didn't get used everything worked as expected, but after adding the scalar subquery after some while it became obvious that wrong results occurred - in that particular case here it meant rows that should have been rejected and written to the error logging table due to the exception raised in the user-defined PL/SQL function suddenly showed up in the target table, and what was even more worrying - they included a co

Chris Antognini's picture

Also Extensions Created Because of SQL Plan Directives Can Invalidate Packages – Take Two

In a previous post I described a situation where the creation of an extension, independently of whether it’s carried out manually by a person or automatically by the database engine, can lead to the invalidation of PL/SQL objects. In this second post on that subject, I describe, with the help of an example (I love examples!) based on the extension_invalidate_pkg_remote.sql script, what can happen when the table on which the extension is created is stored in a remote database.

Let’s start by creating the required objects. Notice that all objects are local but, because the package body references the table through a database link that points to the very same schema owning all other objects, the database engine considers it a remote table.

randolf.geist's picture

Big Nodes, Concurrent Parallel Execution And High System/Kernel Time

The following is probably only relevant for customers that run Oracle on big servers with lots of cores in single instance mode (this specific problem here doesn't reproduce in a RAC environment, see below for an explanation why), like one of my clients that makes use of the Exadata Xn-8 servers, for example a X4-8 with 120 cores / 240 CPUs per node (but also reproduced on older and smaller boxes with 64 cores / 128 CPUs per node).

randolf.geist's picture

DML Operations On Partitioned Tables Can Restart On Invalidation

It's probably not that well known that Oracle can actually rollback / re-start the execution of a DML statement should the cursor become invalidated. By rollback / re-start I mean that Oracle actually performs a statement level rollback (so any modification already performed by that statement until that point gets rolled back), performs another optimization phase of the statement on re-start (due to the invalidation) and begins the execution of the statement from scratch.

randolf.geist's picture

New Version Of XPLAN_ASH Utility

A new version 4.22 of the XPLAN_ASH utility is available for download.

As usual the latest version can be downloaded here.

This version primarily addresses an issue with 12c - if the HIST mode got used to pull ASH information from AWR in 12c it turned out that Oracle forgot to add the new "DELTA_READ_MEM_BYTES" columns to DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY - although it got officially added to V$ACTIVE_SESSION_HISTORY in 12c. So now I had to implement several additional if/then/else constructs to the script to handle this inconsistency. It's the first time that the HIST view doesn't seem to reflect all columns from the V$ view - very likely an oversight rather than by design I assume.

Chris Antognini's picture

Also Extensions Created Because of SQL Plan Directives Can Invalidate Packages


UPDATE 2015-12-18: As metioned by Bryn Llewellyn in this tweet, the invalidation I describe below is caused by bug 19450314. A patch for it is available here for several releases (e.g. it is available for 12.1.0.1.0, 12.1.0.2.1 or 12.1.0.2.13, but not for 12.1.0.2.0). I successfully tested it on 12.1.0.1.0.

The fact that an extension explicitly created by a user through DBMS_STATS can invalidate objects like packages is not new in 12c. It has been like that since the introduction of extensions in 11g. In my opinion, since such an invalidation takes place only when a developer or DBA triggers it, I do not consider it a major problem.

Chris Antognini's picture

Auto SGA Management Impacts the Default Value of DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT

The database engine determines the maximum disk I/O size used during multiblock reads (for example, full table scans or index fast full scans) by multiplying the values of the db_block_size and db_file_multiblock_read_count initialization parameters. The db_file_multiblock_read_count initialization parameter can be set explicitly, or, as of version 10.2, it’s also possible to instruct the database engine to automatically configure it. For the latter, simply don’t set it.

About the value which is automatically determined by the database engine the Oracle Database 12c Reference Guide gives us the following information:

Chris Antognini's picture

Foreign Keys and Library Cache Locks

In this post I would like to describe a behavior of Oracle Database that, at least for me, isn’t obvious at all. Actually, it’s something that I can’t explain why it works in that way.

Let’s start by setting the scene by describing the schema I’m using for the following tests. As you can see from the image, there are three tables: one table (PARENT) that is referenced by two other tables (CHILD1 and CHILD2). Schema used for the tests In my case every table is owned by a different schema (P, C1 and C2 respectively). But, the behavior I describe is independent from that fact (i.e. it works in the same way if all tables are owned by the same schema). If you are interested, here is the SQL*Plus script I used to create them.

oraclebase's picture

Fedora 22/23 and Oracle 11gR2/12cR1

linux-tuxAs always, installations of Oracle server products on Fedora are not a great idea, as explained here.

I was reading some stuff about the Fedora 23 Alpha and realised Fedora 22 had passed me by. Not sure how I missed that. :)

Anyway, I did a run through of the usual play stuff.

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Syndicate content