bugs

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Nested MVs

A recent client was seeing a very large redo penalty from refreshing materialized views. Unfortunately they had to be refreshed very frequently, and were being handled with a complete refresh in atomic mode – which means delete every row from every MV then re-insert every row.  The total redo was running at about 5GB per hour, which wasn’t a problem for throughput, but the space for handling backup and recovery was getting a bit extreme.

The requirement consisted of two MVs which extracted and aggregated row and column subsets in two different ways from a single table; then two MVs that aggregated one of the first MVs in two different ways; then two MVs which each joined one of the first level MVs to one of the scond level MVs.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

ASSM argh!

Here’s a problem with ASSM that used to exist in older versions of Oracle had disappeared by 11.2.0.4 and then re-appeared in 12.1.0.2 – disappearing again by 12.2.0.1. It showed up on MoS a few days ago under the heading: “Insert is running long with more waits on db file sequential read”.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Join Elimination Bug

A few years ago a bug relating to join elimination showed up in a comment to a post I’d done about the need to keep on testing and learining. The bug was visible in version 11.2.0.2 and, with a script to replay it, I’d found that it had disappeared by 11.2.0.4.

Today I had a reason to rediscover the script, and decided to test it against 12.2.0.1 – and found that the bug was still present.

Here’s the model:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

min/max Upgrade

A question came up on the OTN database forum a little while ago about a very simple query that was taking different execution paths on two databases with the same table and index definitions and similar data. In one database the plan used the “index full scan (min/max)” operation while the other database used a brute force “index fast full scan” operation.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Join Elimination 12.2

From time to time someone comes up with the question about whether or not the order of tables in the from clause of a SQL statement should make a difference to execution plans and performance. Broadly speaking the answer is no, although there are a couple of boundary cases were a difference can appear unexpectedly.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Parallel_index hint

Prompted by a recent OTN posting I’ve dug out from my library the following demonstration of an anomalty with the parallel_index() hint. This note is a warning about  how little we understand hints and what they’re supposed to mean, and how we can be caught out by an upgrade. We’ll start with a data set which, to match a comment made in the origina posting rather than being a necessity for the demonstration, has an index that I’ve manipulated to be larger than the underlying table:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Lost Concatenation

This note models one feature of a problem that came up at a client site recently from a system running 12.1.0.2 – a possible bug in the way the optimizer handles a multi-column in-list that can lead to extremely bad cardinality estimates.

The original query was a simple three table join which produced a bad plan with extremely bad cardinality estimates; there was, however, a type-mismatch in one of the predicates (of the form “varchar_col = numeric”), and when this design flaw was addressed the plan changed dramatically and produced good cardinality estimates. The analysis of the plan, 10053 trace, and 10046 trace files done in-house suggested that the problem might relate in some way to an error in the handling of SQL Plan Directives to estimate cardinalities.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

DML and Bloom

One of the comments on my recent posting about “Why use pl/sql bulk strategies over simple SQL” pointed out that it’s not just distributed queries that can change plans dramatically when you change from a simple select to “insert into … select …”; there’s a similar problem with queries that use Bloom filters – the filter disappears when you change from the query to the DML.

This seemed a little bizarre, so I did a quick search on MoS (using the terms “insert select Bloom Filter”) to check for known bugs and then tried to run up a quick demo. Here’s a summary of the related bugs that I found through my first simple search:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Invisible Bug

At this Wednesday’s Oracle Midlands event someone asked me if Oracle would use the statistics on invisible indexes for the index sanity check. I answered that there had been a bug in the very early days of invisible indexes when the distinct_key statistic on the index could be used even though the index itself would not be considered as a candidate in the plan (and the invisible index is still used to avoid foreign key locking – even in 12c – it’s only supposed to be invisible to the optimizer).

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Cursor_Sharing problem

Here’s a possible bug (though maybe “not a bug”) that came up over the weekend on the OTN database forum. An application generating lots of “literal string” SQL was tested with cursor_sharing set to force. This successfully forced the use of bind variable substitution, but a particular type of simple insert statement started generating very large numbers of child cursors – introducing a lot of mutex waits and library cache contention. Here’s a (substituted) statement that was offered as an example of the problem:

Syndicate content