Search

OakieTags

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 21 guests online.

Recent comments

Indexing

Reverse Key

A question came up on the OTN database forum recently asking if you could have a partitioned index on a non-partitioned table.

(Aside: I’m not sure whether it would be quicker to read the manuals or try the experiment – either would probably be quicker than posing the question to the forum. As so often happens in these RTFM questions the OP didn’t bother to acknowledge any of the responses)

Golden Oldies

I’ve just been motivated to resurrect a couple of articles I wrote for DBAZine about 12 years ago on the topic of bitmap indexes. All three links point to Word 97 documents which I posted on my old website in September 2003. Despite their age they’re still surprisingly good.

Counting

There’s a live example on OTN at the moment of an interesting class of problem that can require some imaginative thinking. It revolves around a design that uses a row in one table to hold the low and high values for a range of values in another table. The problem is then simply to count the number of rows in the second table that fall into the range given by the first table. There’s an obvious query you can write (a join with inequality) but if you have to join each row in the first table to several million rows in the second table, then aggregate to count them, that’s an expensive strategy.  Here’s the query (with numbers of rows involved) that showed up on OTN; it’s an insert statement, and the problem is that it takes 7 hours to insert 37,600 rows:

Bitmap Counts

In an earlier (not very serious) post about count(*) I pointed out how the optimizer sometimes does a redundant “bitmap conversion to rowid” when counting. In the basic count(*) example I showed this wasn’t a realistic issue unless you had set cursor_sharing to “force” (or the now-deprecated “similar”). There are, however, some cases where the optimizer can do this in more realistic circumstances and this posting models a scenario I came across a few years ago. The exact execution path has changed over time (i.e. version) but the anomaly persists, even in 12.1.0.2.

First we create a “fact” table and a dimension table, with a bitmap index on the fact table and a corresponding primary key on the dimension table:

count(*) – again !

Because you can never have enough of a good thing.

Here’s a thought – The optimizer doesn’t treat all constants equally.  No explanations, just read the code – execution plans at the end:

Quiz Night

I have a table with several indexes on it, and I have two versions of a query that I might run against that table. Examine them carefully, then come up with some plausible reason why it’s possible (with no intervening DDL, DML, stats collection, parameter fiddling etc., etc., etc.) for the second form of the query to be inherently more efficient than the first.

Quiz night

Here’s a script to create a table, with index, and collect stats on it. Once I’ve collected stats I’ve checked the execution plan to discover that a hint has been ignored (for a well-known reason):

Delete Costs

One of the quirky little anomalies of the optimizer is that it’s not allowed to select rows from a table after doing an index fast full scan (index_ffs) even if it is obviously the most efficient (or, perhaps, least inefficient) strategy. For example:

Delete Costs

One of the quirky little anomalies of the optimizer is that it’s not allowed to select rows from a table after doing an index fast full scan (index_ffs) even if it is obviously the most efficient (or, perhaps, least inefficient) strategy. For example:

Cluster Nulls

Yesterday’s posting was a reminder that bitmap indexes, unlike B-tree indexes in Oracle,  do store entries where every column in the index is null. The same is true for cluster indexes – which are implemented as basic B-tree indexes. Here’s a test case I wrote to demonstrate the point.