Search

OakieTags

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 33 guests online.

Recent comments

bugs

RLS bug

RLS – row level security, aka VPD (virtual private database) or FGAC (fine grained access control) has a critical bug in 11g. The bug is unpublished, but gets mentioned in various other documents, so can be identified as: Bug: 7828323 “SYS_CONTEXTS RETURNS WRONG VALUE WITH SHARED_CONTEXT_SENSITIVE”

The title tells you nearly everything you need to know – if you’ve declared a security policy as context_sensitive or shared_context_sensitive then a change to the context ought to result in the associated predicate function being called to generate a new security predicate the next time the policy becomes relevant. Thanks to bug 7828323 this doesn’t always happen – so queries can return the wrong set of results.

Shrink Space

Here’s a lovely effect looking at v$lock (on 11.2.0.4)

Subquery Anomaly

Here’s an oddity that appeared on the OTN database forum last night:

We have this query in our application which works fine in 9i but fails in 11gR2 (on Exadata) giving an “ORA-00937: not a single-group group function” error….

… The subquery is selecting a column and it doesn’t have a group by clause at all. I am not sure how is this even working in 9i. I always thought that on a simple query using an aggregate function (without any analytic functions / clause), we cannot select a column without having that column in the group by clause. So, how 11g behaves was not a surprise but surprised to see how 9i behaves. Can someone explain this behaviour?

Flashback Fail ?

Sitting in an airport, waiting for a plane, I decided to read a note (pdf) about Flashback data archive written by Beat Ramseier from Trivadis.  I’d got about three quarters of the way through it when I paused for thought and figured out that on the typical database implementation something nasty is going to happen after approximately 3 years and 9 months.  Can you guess why ?

Empty Hash

A little while ago I highlighted a special case with the MINUS operator (that one of the commentators extended to include the INTERSECT operator) relating to the way the second subquery would take place even if the first subquery produced no rows. I’ve since had an email from an Oracle employee letting me know that the developers looked at this case and decided that it wasn’t feasible to address it because – taking a wider view point – if the query were to run parallel they would need a mechanism that allowed some synchronisation between slaves so that every slave could find out that none of the slaves had received no rows from the first subquery, and this was going to lead to hanging problems.

Predicate Order

Common internet question: does the order of predicates in the where clause make a difference.
General answer: It shouldn’t, but sometimes it will thanks to defects in the optimizer.

There’s a nicely presented example on the OTN database forum where predicate order does matter (between 10.1.x.x and 11.1.0.7). Notnne particularly – there’s a script to recreate the issue; note, also, the significance of the predicate section of the execution plan.
It’s bug 6782665, fixed in 11.2.0.1

FBI Skip Scan

A recent posting on the OTN database forum highlighted a bug (or defect, or limitation) in the way that the optimizer handles index skip scans with “function-based” indexes – it doesn’t do them. The defect has probably been around for a long time and demonstrates a common problem with testing Oracle – it’s very easy for errors in the slightly unusual cases to be missed; it also demonstrates a general principle that it can take some time for a (small) new feature to be applied consistently across the board.

The index definitions in the original posting included expressions like substr(nls_lower(colX), 1, 25), and it’s possible for all sorts of unexpected effects to appear when your code starts running into NLS  settings, so I’ve created a much simpler example. Here’s my table definition, with three index definitions:

Index Compression – aargh

The problem with telling people that some feature of Oracle is a “good thing” is that some of those people will go ahead and use it; and if enough people use it some of them will discover a hitherto undiscovered defect. Almost inevitably the bug will turn out to be one of those “combinations” bugs that leaves you thinking: “Why the {insert preferred expression of disbelief here} should {feature X} have anything to do with {feature Y}”.

Here – based on index compression, as you may have guessed from the title – is one such bug. I got it first on 11.1.0.7, but it’s still there on 11.2.0.4 and 12.1.0.1

Pagination

I was involved in a thread on Oracle-L recently started with the question: “How many LIOs is too many LIOs”. Rather than rewrite the whole story, I’ve supplied a list of links to the contributions I made, in order – the final “answer” is actually the answer to a different question – but travels an interesting path to get there.#

Index Hash

I’m afraid this is one of my bad puns again – an example of the optimizer  making a real hash of the index hash join. I’m going to create a table with several indexes (some of them rather similar to each other) and execute a query that should do an index join between the obvious two indexes. To show how obvious the join should be I’m going to start with a couple of queries that show the cost of simple index fast full scans.

Here’s the data generating code: