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:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

RI Locks

RI = Referential Integrity: also known informally as parent/child integrity, and primary (or unique) key/foreign key checking.

I’m on a bit of a roll with things that I must have explained dozens or even hundreds of times in different environments without ever formally explaining them on my blog. Here’s a blog item I could have done with to response to  a question that came up on the OTN database forum over the weekend.

What happens in the following scenario:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Index Speculation

There’s a current question on the OTN database forum as follows (with a little cosmetic adjustment):

I have a request for 3 indices as shown below. Does the 1st index suffice for 2 and 3?  Do I need all 3?

  • create index idx_atm_em_eff_ver_current_del on atm_xxx_salary (employee_key, effective_dt, salary_version_number, is_current, is_deleted);
  • create index idx_atm_em_ver_current on atm_xxx_salary (employee_key, salary_version_number, is_current);
  • create index .idx_atm_sal_current_del on atm_xxx_salary (employee_key, is_deleted, is_current);

In the absence of any information about the data and the application the correct answer is: “How could we possibly tell?”

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Connect By

I received an email a couple of days ago that was a little different from usual – although the obvious answer was “it’s the data”. A connect by query with any one of several hundred input values ran in just a few seconds, but with one specific input it was still running 4,000 seconds later using the same execution plan – was this a bug ?

There’s nothing to suggest that it should be, with skewed data anything can happen: even a single table access by exact index could take 1/100th of a second to return a result if there was only one row matching the requirement and 1,000 seconds if there were 100,000 rows in 100,000 different table blocks (and the table was VERY big). The same scaling problem could be true of any type of query – and “connect by” queries can expose you to a massive impact because their run time can increase geometrically as the recursion takes place.

Jonathan Lewis's picture


This is just a little example of thinking about hinting for short-term hacking requirements. It’s the answer to a question that came up on the Oracle-L listserver  a couple of months ago (Oct 2015) and is a convenient demonstration of a principle that can often (not ALWAYS) be applied as a response to the problem: “I can make this query work quickly once, how do I make it work quickly when I make it part of a join ?”

The question starts with this query, which returns “immediately” for any one segment:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Partitioned Bitmap Join

If you don’t want to read the story, the summary for this article is:

If you create bitmap join indexes on a partitioned table and you use partition exchanges to load data into the table then make sure you create the bitmap join indexes on the loading tables in exactly the same order as you created them on the partitioned table or the exchange will fail with the (truthful not quite complete) error: ORA-14098: index mismatch for tables in ALTER TABLE EXCHANGE PARTITION.

oakroot's picture

[Oracle] Trace back to responsible SQL or PL/SQL code for a particular (PGA) memory request by intercepting process with DTrace


This is just a short blog post about a simple DTrace script (dtrace_kghal_pga_code), that i recently wrote and published due to a PGA memory leak troubleshooting assignment. A client of mine noticed a major PGA memory increase after upgrading to Oracle 12c. The PL/SQL code did not change - just the database release. He already troubleshooted the issue with help of Tanel Poder's blog post "Oracle Memory Troubleshooting, Part 4: Drilling down into PGA memory usage with V$PROCESS_MEMORY_DETAIL" and identified the corresponding heap and allocation reason.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Table Scans

It’s amazing how easy it is to interpret a number incorrectly until the point comes where you have to look at it closely – and then you realise that there was a lot more to the number than your initial casual assumption, and you would have realised it all along if you’d ever needed to think about it before.

Here’s a little case in point. I have a simple (i.e. non-partitioned) heap table t1 which is basically a clone of the view dba_segments, and I’ve just connected to Oracle through an SQL*Plus session then run a couple of SQL statements. The following is a continuous log of my activity:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Add primary key.

I thought I had written this note a few years ago, on OTN or Oracle-L if not on my blog, but I can’t find any sign of it so I’ve decided it’s time to write it (again) – starting as a question about the following code:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Trace file size

Here’s a convenient enhancement for tracing that came up on Twitter a few days ago – first in a tweet that I retweeted, then in a question from Christian Antognini based on this bit of the 12c Oracle documentation (opens in separate tab). The question was – does it work for you ?

The new description for max_dump_file_size says that for large enough values Oracle will split the file into multiple chunks of a few megabytes, using a suffix to identify the sequence of the chunks, keeping only the first chunk and the most recent chunks. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be true. However, prompted by Chris’ question I ran a quick query against the full parameter list looking for parameters with the word “trace” in their name:

Syndicate content