Search

Top 60 Oracle Blogs

Recent comments

Conditional SQL

Can’t Unnest

In an echo of a very old “conditional SQL” posting, a recent posting on the ODC general database discussion forum ran into a few classic errors of trouble-shooting. By a lucky coincidence this allowed me to rediscover and publish an old example of parallel execution gone wild before moving on to talk about the fundamental problem exhibited in the latest query.

The ODC thread started with a question along the lines of “why isn’t Oracle using the index I hinted”, with the minor variation that it said “When I hint my SQL with an index hint it runs quickly so I’ve created a profile that applies the hint, but the hint doesn’t get used in production.”

Where / Having

There’s a very old mantra about the use of the “having” clause that tells us that if it’s valid (i.e. will always give the same results) then any predicate that could be moved from the having clause to the where clause should be moved. In recent versions of Oracle the optimizer will do this for itself in some cases but (for reasons that I’m not going to mention) I came across a silly example recently where a little manual editing produced a massive performance improvement.

Here’s a quick demo:

Conditional SQL – 5

Here’s a note that has been sitting around for more than 3 years (the draft date is Jan 2015), waiting for me to finish it off; and in that time we’ve got a new version of Oracle that changes the solution to the problem it presented. (I also managed to write “Conditional SQL –  6” in the intervening period !)

This posting started with a question on the OTN (now ODC) database forum about an execution plan used by 11.2.0.3.  Here’s a model to represent the data and the query:

Conditional SQL- 6

An odd little anomaly showed up on the OTN database forum a few days ago where a query involving a table covered by Oracle Label Security (OLS) seemed to wrap itself into a non-mergeable view when written using traditional Oracle SQL, but allowed for view-merging when accessed through ANSI standard SQL. I don’t know why there’s a difference but it did prompt a thought about non-mergeable views and what I’ve previously called “conditional SQL” – namely SQL which holds a predicate that should have been tested in the client code and not passed to the database engine.

The thought was this – could the database engine decide to do a lot of redundant work if you stuck a silly predicate inside a non-mergeable view: the answer turns out to be yes. Here’s a demonstration I’ve run on 11g and 12c:

Conditional SQL – 4

This is one of those posts where the investigation is left as an exercise – it’s not difficult, just something that will take a little time that I don’t have, and just might end up with me chasing half a dozen variations (so I’d rather not get sucked into looking too closely). It comes from an OTN question which ends up reporting this predicate:

NVL()

Here’s a little detail that I hadn’t noticed before (and it goes back to at least 8i). This is running on 11.2.0.3, and table t1 is just all_objects where rownum <= 20000: