Troubleshooting

Uwe Hesse's picture

How to cancel SQL statements in #Oracle 18c

https://uhesse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/helps.png?w=600&h=558 600w, https://uhesse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Comparing Plans

It can be difficult to find the critical differences when comparing execution plans when you want to find out why the optimizer has changed its choice of plan and what may have happened to cause the change, and even the various diff_plan_xxx() functions in dbms_xplan don’t help very much, so I thought I’d write up an example that appeared recently on the ODC database forum to give people some ideas about how to approach the problem. There is, however, no simple algorithm that you can apply to narrow your focus down to the most probable cause of change, there are simply a few methods that have to be applied with a little flair and imagination.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

255 Columns

It’s the gift that keeps on giving – no matter how many problems you find there are always more waiting to be found. It’s been some time since I last wrote about tables with more than 255 columns, and I said then that there was more to come. In the last article I described how adding a few columns to a table, or updating a trailing column in a way that made the table’s used column count exceed 255, could result in some strange row-splitting behaviour – in this article I’m going to look at a critical side effect of that behaviour.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Interval Partition Problem

Assume you’ve got a huge temporary tablespace, there’s plenty of space in your favourite tablespace, you’ve got a very boring, simple table you want to copy and partition, and no-one and nothing is using the system. Would you really expect a (fairly) ordinary “create table t2 as select * from t1” to end with an Oracle error “ORA-1652: unable to extend temp segment by 128 in tablespace TEMP” . That’s the temporary tablespace that’s out of space, not the target tablespace for the copy.

Here’s a sample data set (tested on 11.2.0.4 and 12.1.0.2) to demonstrate the surprise – you’ll need about 900MB of space by the time the entire model has run to completion:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Histogram Threat

Have you ever seen a result like this:


SQL> select sql_id, count(*) from V$sql group by sql_id having count(*) > 1000;

SQL_ID		COUNT(*)
------------- ----------
1dbzmt8gpg8x7	   30516

A client of mine who had recently upgraded to 12.2.0.1 RAC, using DRCP (database resident connection pooling) for an application using PHP was seeing exactly this type of behaviour for a small number of very simple SQL statements and wanted to find out what was going on because they were also seeing an undesirable level of contention in the library cache when the system load increased.

In this note I just want to highlight a particular detail of their problem – with an example – showing how easily histograms can introduce problems if you don’t keep an eye out for the dangers.

One of their queries really was as simple as this:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Case Study – 1

It has been some time since I wrote an article walking through the analysis of information on an AWR report, but a nice example appeared a few weeks ago on Twitter that broke a big AWR picture into a sequence of bite-sized chunks that made a little story so here it is, replayed in sync with my ongoing thoughts. The problem started with the (highly paraphrased) question – “How could I get these headline figures when all the ‘SQL ordered by’ sections of the report show captured SQL account for 0.0% of Total?”.

Jonathan Lewis's picture

Histogram Hassle

I came across a simple performance problem recently that ended up highlighting a problem with the 12c hybrid histogram algorithm. It was a problem that I had mentioned in passing a few years ago, but only in the context of Top-N histograms and without paying attention to the consequences. In fact I should have noticed the same threat in a recent article by Maria Colgan that mentioned the problems introduced in 12c by the option “for all columns size repeat”.

So here’s the context (note – all numbers used in this example are approximations to make the arithmetic obvious).  The client had a query with a predicate like the follwing:

Jonathan Lewis's picture

ASSM tangle

Here’s a follow-on from Tuesday’s (serious) note about a bug in 12.1.0.2 that introduces random slowdown on large-scale inserts. This threat in this note, while truthful and potentially a nuisance, is much less likely to become visible because it depends on you doing something that you probably shouldn’t be doing.

There have always been problems with ASSM and large-scale deletes – when should Oracle mark a block as having free space on deletion: if your session does it immediately then other sessions will start trying to use the free space that isn’t really there until you commit; if your session doesn’t do it immediately when can it happen, since you won’t want it done on commit – but that means the segment could “lose” a lot of free space if something doesn’t come along in a timely fashion and tidy up.

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

Defaults

Following on from a Twitter reference and an update to an old posting about a side effect of  constraints on the work done inserting data, I decided to have a closer look at the more general picture of default values and inserts. Here’s a script that I’ve tested against 11.2.0.4, 12.1.0.2, and 12.2.0.1 (original install, no patches applied in all cases):

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