I have a table that has 1M rows with dates that span 2000 days, all evenly distributed (so there are 500 rows per day for the mathematically challenged). All stats are 100% accurate and I have an index on the date column. OK, I now select 1 day’s worth of data: [...]
Well done to everyone that got the correct answer Indeed, the subtle but significant difference between the two demos was that demo one created the table in a tablespace called USER_DATA with manual segment space management (with freelists/freelist groups set to 1), while demo two created the table in a tablespace called USER_DATA1 with automatic segment space management. [...]
This one is a little different as it comes in the form of a demo (and about 1 minute to read) so you have to work a little I create table, index and sequence: I then create a little procedure that simply adds 100,000 rows to the table: I then [...]
My, what a clever lot we have reading this blog Indeed, most of the work has already been done for me as we already have a couple of excellent demos in the list of comments. The answer is Yes, the CBO will consider using the index and Yes, there may be a number of scenarios when the [...]
A quick collation – and warning – for 11.2
Bottom line – be careful about what you do with system stats on 11.2
Footnote: the MOS link is a search string producing a list of references. I set it up like that because one of the articles referencing the bug is called “Things to consider before upgrade to 188.8.131.52″ and it’s worth reading.
Addendum: one of the people on the two-day course I’ve just run in Berlin sent me a link for a quick note on how to set your own values for the system stats if you hit this bug. It’s actually quite a reasonable thing to do whether or not you hit the bug given the way that gathering the stats can produce unsuitable figures anyway: setting system stats. (I’ve also added their company blog to the links on the right, they have a number interesting items and post fairly regularly.)
I was going to leave it for a few days but there have already been so many comments and discussions on all this, I thought I better write something up. In case anyone was wondering, yes I probably am driving my colleagues at work mad with my “Question of the Day” !! Unfortunately, some might [...]
Not only are my regular blog readers a good deal better looking than the average person, but they’re quite a bit smarter as well As most people have correctly identified, the answer I was after to my previous Min/Max Quiz is that Option 1 is indeed the odd one out, as it’s the only option [...]
Jonathan Lewis recently wrote a really nice blog piece blevel=1 on the dangers of an index toggling between BLEVEL 1 and BLEVEL 2. I thought it would be useful to demonstrate this issue with a quick demo (Note: this example is on 184.108.40.206, with an 8K block size). First, create a simple little table with 336,000 rows [...]
When one thinks about a column that might benefit from being indexed, one generally considers columns with lots of different values so that the selectivity of the column is such that relatively few rows get selected, making the index appealing to the cost based optimizer. There are of course many exceptions to this generalisation [...]
Here’s one of those quick answers I give sometimes on forums or newsgroups. I forget when I wrote this, and when, and what the specific question was – but it was something to do with rebuilding an index on a small table where data was constantly being deleted and inserted.
Another problem with high insert/delete rates appears with very small indexes.
If you have a table that is small but constantly recycles its space you may also find you have an index where the number of leaf blocks puts you close to the borderline between having blevel = 1 and blevel = 2. If the size crosses that border occasionally and the statistics are updated to reflect the change – which is quite likely for a table subject to lots of updates and deletes if you have automatic stats collection enabled – then execution plans could change, resulting in dramatic changes in performance.
The workaround is fairly obvious – don’t let Oracle collect stats automatically on that table, instead create a stats-collection strategy for eliminating the change in blevel. For example, keep the stats locked except when you run your own code to deal with the stats, making sure that you overwrite the index blevel with 1 even if it has just crossed the boundary to 2.
Footnote: the reason why a change from 1 to 2 is dramatic is because Oracle ignores the blevel in the optimizer arithmetic when it is set to 1; so the change from 1 to 2 actually has the impact of a change from zero to 2. Then the cost of a nested loop access is “cost of single access multiplied by number of times you do it” – so the sudden appearance of a 2 in the formula gives an increment in cost of “2 * number of times you visit the table” of your small table is the second table in a nested loop – and suddenly a nested loop becomes much more expensive without a real change in the data size.
Footnote 2: it should be obvious that you don’t need to rebuild the index once you know what the problem is; but since we’re talking about a small index with a blevel that is usually 1 it probably won’t take more than a fraction of a second to rebuild the index and there’s a fair chance you can find a safe moment to do it. In terms of complexity the solution is just as simple as the stats solution – so you might as well consider it. The only thing you need to be careful about is that you don’t happen to rebuild the index at a time when the blevel is likely to be 2.
Footnote 3: For an example of the type of code that will adjust the blevel of an index see this URL. (Note, the example talks about copying stats from one place to another – but the principle is the same.)