CBO

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Skip Scan 3

If you’ve come across any references to the “index skip scan” operation for execution plans you’ve probably got some idea that this can appear when the number of distinct values for the first column (or columns – since you can skip multiple columns) is small. If so, what do you make of this demonstration:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

FBI Limitation

A recent question on the ODC (OTN) database forum prompted me to point out that the optimizer doesn’t consider function-based indexes on remote tables in distributed joins. I then spent 20 minutes trying to find the blog note where I had demonstrated this effect, or an entry in the manuals reporting the limitation – but I couldn’t find anything, so I’ve written a quick demo which I’ve run on 12.2.0.1 to show the effect. First, the SQL to create a couple of tables and a couple of indexes:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Column Groups

There’s a question on the ODC database forum about column groups that throws up an interesting side point. The OP is looking at a query like the following and asking about which column groups might help the optimizer get the best plan:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Assumptions

As the years roll on I’ve found it harder and harder to supply quick answers to “simple” questions on the Oracle-L list server and OTN/ODC forum because things are constantly changing and an answer that may have been right the last time I checked could now be wrong. A simple example of the consequences of change showed up recently on the OTN/ODC forum where one reply to a question started:

Just why do you need distinct in a subquery??? That’s the first thing that appears really shocking to me. If it’s a simple in (select …) adding a distinct to the subquery would just impose a sort unique(as you can see in the explain plan), which may be quite costly.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Join Factorization

This item is, by a roundabout route, a follow-up to yesterday’s note on a critical difference in cardinality estimates that appeared if you used the coalesce() function in its simplest form as a substitute for the nvl() function. Connor McDonald wrote a followup note about how using the nvl() function in a suitable predicate could lead to Oracle splitting a query into a UNION ALL (in version 12.2), which led me to go back to a note I’d written on the same topic about 10 years earlier where the precursor of this feature already existed but used CONCATENATION instead of OR-EXPANSION.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Coalesce v. NVL

“Modern” SQL should use the coalesce() function rather than the nvl() function – or so the story goes – but do you always want to do that to an Oracle database ? The answer is “maybe not”. Although the coalesce() function can emulate the nvl() function (in many cases) there are significant differences in behaviour, some that suggest it’s a good idea to use the substitution and others that suggest otherwise. Different decisions may be appropriate for different circumstances, and this note highlights one case against the substitution. We’ll start with a simple data set:

Franck Pachot's picture

12cR2 Subquery Elimination

More and more we can see crazy queries generated by ORM frameworks or BI query generators. They are build to be easily generated rather than being optimal. Then, the optimizer has to implement more and more transformations to get an efficient execution plan. Here is one new that appeared in Oracle 12cR2: Subquery Elimination when the subquery do not filter any rows.

A semi-join is a join where we do not need to match with all rows, but only one. We write it with an EXISTS subquery or a =ANY or =SOME one, which is equivalent.

Franck Pachot's picture

CBO, FIRST_ROWS and VIEW misestimate

There are several bugs with the optimizer in FIRST_ROWS mode. Here is one I encountered during a 10.2.0.4 to 12.2.0.1 migration when a view had an ‘order by’ in its definition.

Here is the test case that reproduces the problem.

A big table:

SQL> create table DEMO1 (n constraint DEMO1_N primary key,x,y) as select 1/rownum,'x','y' from xmltable('1 to 1000000');
Table DEMO1 created.

with a view on it, and that view has an order by:

SQL> create view DEMOV as select * from DEMO1 order by n desc;
View DEMOV created.

and another table to join to:

SQL> create table DEMO2 (x constraint DEMO2_X primary key) as select dummy from dual;
Table DEMO2 created.

My query reads the view in a subquery, adds a call to a PL/SQL function, and joins the result with the other table:

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

OFE

The title is a well-known shorthand for parameter optimizer_features_enable and it has been the topic of a recent blog post by Mike Dietrich in which he decries the practice of switching the parameter back to an older version on an upgrade (even though, as he points out, Oracle support has been known to recommend it and the manuals describe – though not with 100% accuracy – why you might do so).

I am one of the people who will suggest that on the upgrade a client should consider setting the optimizer_features_enable to the version just left behind as a strategy for getting to a newer version of the base code while minimising the threat of plan instability, so I’m going to play devil’s advocate in this case even though, as we shall see, I am nearly 100% in favour of Mike’s complaint.

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