CBO

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Join Cardinality – 2

In the previous note I posted about Join Cardinality I described a method for calculating the figure that the optimizer would give for the special case where you had a query that:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Join Cardinality

Following up my “Hacking for Skew” article from a couple of days ago, Chinar Aliyev has written an article about a method for persuading the optimizer to calculate the correct cardinality estimate without using any undocumented, or otherwise dubious, mechanisms.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Column Group Catalog

I seem to have written a number of aricles about column groups – the rather special, and most useful, variant on extended stats. To make it as easy as possible to find the right article I’ve decided to produce a little catalogue (catalog) of all the relevant articles, with a little note about the topic each article covers. Some of the articles will link to others in the list, and there are a few items in the list from other blogs. There are also a few items which are the titles of drafts which have been hanging around for the last few years.

Franck Pachot's picture

MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN: a join method or a join type?

By Franck Pachot

.
I’ll present about join methods at POUG and DOAG. I’ll show how the different join methods work in order to better understand them. The idea is to show Nested Loops, Hash Join, Sort Merge Join, Merge Join Cartesian on the same query. I’ll run a simple join between DEPT and EMP with the USE_NL, USE_HASH, USE_MERGE and USE_MERGE_CARTESIAN hints. I’ll show the execution plan, with SQL Monitoring in text mode. And I’ll put some gdb breakpoints on the ‘qer’ (query execution rowsource) functions to run the plan operations step by step. Then I’ll do the same on a different query in order to show in detail the 12c adaptive plans.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Extended Histograms

Today’s little puzzle comes courtesy of the Oracle-L mailing list. A table has two columns (c2 and c3), which contain only the values ‘Y’ and ‘N’, with the following distribution:


select   c2, c3, count(*)
from     t1
group by c2, c3
;

C C   COUNT(*)
- - ----------
N Y       1994
Y N      71482

2 rows selected.

The puzzle is this – how do you get the optimizer to predict a cardinality of zero (or, using its best approximation, 1) if you execute a query where the predicate is:

where   c2 = 'N' and c3 = 'N'

Here are 4 tests you might try:

Richard Foote's picture

Rebuilding Indexes: Danger With Clustering Factor Calculation (Chilly Down)

Let me start by saying if you don’t already following Jonathan Lewis’s excellent Oracle blog, do yourself a favour. In a recent article, Jonathan highlighted a danger with rebuilding indexes (or indeed creating an index) when used in relation to collecting index statistics with the TABLE_CACHED_BLOCKS preference. I’ve discussed the importance of the TABLE_CACHED_BLOCKS statistics […]

Jonathan Lewis's picture

pushing predicates

I came across this odd limitation (maybe defect) with pushing predicates (join predicate push down) a few years ago that made a dramatic difference to a client query when fixed but managed to hide itself rather cunningly until you looked closely at what was going on. Searching my library for something completely different I’ve just rediscovered the model I built to demonstrate the issue so I’ve tested it against a couple of newer versions  of Oracle (including 18.1) and found that the anomaly still exists. It’s an interesting little detail about checking execution plans properly so I’ve written up the details. The critical feature of the problem is a union all view:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Clustering_Factor

Here’s another little note on the clustering_factor for an index and the table preference table_cached_blocks that can be set with a call to dbms_stats.set_table_prefs(). I might be repeating a point that someone made in a comment on an older posting but if that’s the case I can’t find the comment at present, and it’s worth its own posting anyway.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Cursor_sharing force

Prompted by a recent ODC (OTN) question I’ve just written up an example of one case where setting the cursor_sharing parameter to force doesn’t work as you might expect. It’s a specific example of what I believe is a theme that can appear in several different circumstances: if your SQL mixes “genuine” bind variable with literals then the literals may not be substituted.

Here’s a simple data set to start with:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Index Bouncy Scan 3

This is a follow-up to a problem I had with yesterday’s example of using recursive CTEs to “bounce” along a multi-column index to pick out the unique set of combinations of the first two columns. Part of the resulting query used a pair of aggregate scalar subqueries in a select list – and Andrew Sayer improved on my query by introducing a “cross apply” (which I simply hadn’t thought of) which the optimizer transformed into a lateral view (which I had thought of, but couldn’t get to work).

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