Search

Top 60 Oracle Blogs

Recent comments

CBO

12c Downgrade

No, not really – but sometimes the optimizer gets better and gives you worse performance as a side effect when you upgrade. Here’s an example where 11.2.0.4 recognised (with a few hints) the case for a nested loop semi-join and 12c went a bit further and recognised the opportunity for doing a cunning “semi_to_inner” transformation … which just happened to do more work than the 11g plan.

Here’s a data set to get things going, I’ve got “parent” and “child” tables, but in this particular demonstration I won’t be invoking referential integrity:

Descending Indexes

I’ve written about optimizer defects with descending indexes before now but a problem came up on the OTN database forum a few days ago that made me decide to look very closely at an example where the arithmetic was clearly defective. The problem revolves around a table with two indexes, one on a date column (TH_UPDATE_TIMESTAMP) and the other a compound index which starts with the same column in descending order (TH_UPDATE_TIMESTAMP DESC, TH_TXN_CODE). The optimizer was picking the “descending” index in cases where it was clearly the wrong index (even after the statistics had been refreshed and all the usual errors relating to date-based indexes had been discounted). Here’s an execution plan from the system which shows that there’s something wrong with the optimizer:

Missing Bloom

Here’s a little surprise that came up on the OTN database forum a few days ago. Rather than describe it, I’m just going to create a data set to demonstrate it, initially using 11.2.0.4 although the same thing happens on 12.1.0.2. The target is a query that joins to a range/hash composite partitioned table and uses a Bloom filter to do partition pruning at the subpartition level.  (Note to self: is it possible to see Bloom filters that operate at both the partition and subpartition level from a single join? I suspect not.). Here’s my code to create and populate both the partitioned table and a driving table for the query:

CBO series

Update 9th July 2015:  part 4 now published.

I’ve changed the catalogue from a post to a page so that it gets a static address: https://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/cbo-series/

I’ll leave this posting here for a while, but will probably remember to remove it some time in the future.

[Oracle] DB Optimizer Part XII - Revealing SQL Plan Directive details for existing/loaded cursor from CBO (and SQL Dynamic Sampling Services) trace

Introduction

The idea for this blog post is based on a recent Twitter discussion with Martin Berger, Martin Bach and Mauro Pagano about revealing SQL Plan Directive details for an existing cursor as walking through the standard Oracle data dictionary views can be very time consuming/slow and there are still some details missing about the dynamic sampling task itself, even if you have found what you are looking for.

 

Dynamic Sampling

Following on from an OTN posting about dynamic sampling difficulties I had planned to write a blog post about the difference between “not sampling when hinted” and “ignoring the sample” – but Mohamed Houri got there before me.

It’s just worth highlighing a little detail that is often overlooked, though: there are two versions of the dynamic_sampling() hint, the cursor level and the table level, and the number of blocks sampled at a particular level is dependent on which version you are using.  Level 4 at the cursor level, for example, will sample 64 blocks if and only if a certain condition is met,  but at the table level it will sample 256 blocks unconditionally.

CBO Series

About a year ago I came across a couple of useful articles from Stefan Koehler, which is when I added his name to my blog roll. As an introduction for other readers I’ve compiled an index for a series of articles he wrote about the CBO viewed, largely, from the perspective of using Oracle to run SAP. Today I realised I hadn’t got around to publishing it, and there’s been a couple of additions since I first started to compile the list.

Temp Table Transformation Cardinality Estimates - 2

Continuing from the previous part - which was about the Temp Table Transformation and join cardinality estimates - using the same simple table setup here is a slight variation of the previously used query to demonstrate the potential impact on single table cardinality estimates:


explain plan for
with
cte as (
select /* inline */ id from t1 t
where 1 = 1
)
select /*+
no_merge(a) no_merge(b)
*/ * from cte a, cte b
where a.id = b.id
and a.id > 990 and b.id > 990
;

-- 11.2.0.x Plan with TEMP transformation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temp Table Transformation Cardinality Estimates - 1

Having published recently two notes about the Temp Table Transformation highlighting the heuristics based decision and other weaknesses, for example regarding the projection of columns, it's time to publish some more notes about it.The transformation can also have significant impact on cardinality estimates, both join and single table cardinality.Looking at the difference in the join cardinality estimates of following simple example:


create table t1
as
select
rownum as id
, mod(rownum, 10) + 1 as id2
, rpad('x', 100) as filler
from
dual
connect by
level <= 1000
;

Heuristic Temp Table Transformation - 2

Some time ago I've demonstrated the non-cost based decision for applying the temp table transformation when using CTEs (Common Table/Subquery Expressions). In this note I want to highlight another aspect of this behaviour.Consider the following data creating a table with delibrately wide columns:


create table a
as
select
rownum as id
, rownum as id2
, rpad('x', 4000) as large_vc1
, rpad('x', 4000) as large_vc2
, rpad('x', 4000) as large_vc3
from
dual
connect by
level <= 1000
;

exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(null, 'a')