Another question on a seemingly simple “not exists” query has appeared on OTN just a few days after my last post about the construct. There are two little differences between the actual form of the two queries that make it worth repeating the analysis.
The first query was of the form:
select from big_table where not exists (select exact_matching_row from small table);
while the new query is of the form:
Here’s a quirky little bug that appeared on the OTN database forum in the last 24 hours which (in 12c, at least) produces an issue which I can best demonstrate with the following cut-n-paste:
There was a little conversation on Oracle-L about ASH (active session history) recently which I thought worth highlighting – partly because it raised a detail that I had got wrong until Tim Gorman corrected me a few years ago.
Once every second the dynamic performance view v$active_session_history copies information about active sessions from v$session. (There are a couple of exceptions to the this rule – for example if a session has called dbms_lock.sleep() it will appear in v$session as state = ‘ACTIVE’, but it will not be recorded in v$active_session_history.) Each of these snapshots is referred to as a “sample” and may hold zero, one, or many rows.
One of the waits that is specific to ASSM (automatic segment space management) is the “enq: FB – contention” wait. You find that the “FB” enqueue has the following description and wait information when you query v$lock_type, and v$event_name:
A new version 4.21 of the XPLAN_ASH utility is available for download. I publish this version because it will be used in the recent video tutorials explaining the Active Session History functionality of the script.
This is mainly a maintenance release that fixes some incompatibilities of the 4.2 version with less recent versions (10.2 and 184.108.40.206).
As an extra however, this version now differentiates between general CPU usage and in-memory CPU usage (similar to 220.127.116.11 Real-Time SQL Monitoring). This is not done in all possible sections of the output yet, but the most important ones are already covered.
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 18.104.22.168.
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:
One thing you (ought to) learn very early on in an Oracle career is that there are always cases you haven’t previously considered. It’s a feature that is frequently the downfall of “I found it on the internet” SQL. Here’s one (heavily paraphrased) example that appeared on the OTN database forum a few days ago:
select table_name,round((blocks*8),2)||’kb’ “size” from user_tables where table_name = ‘MYTABLE';
select table_name,round((num_rows*avg_row_len/1024),2)||’kb’ “size” from user_tables where table_name = ‘MYTABLE';
The result from the first query is 704 kb, the result from the second is 25.4 kb … fragmentation, rebuild, CTAS etc. etc.
A couple of days ago I highlighted an optimizer anomaly caused by the presence of an index with a descending column. This was a minor (unrelated) detail that appeared in a problem on OTN where the optimizer was using an index FULL scan when someone was expecting to see an index RANGE scan. My earlier posting supplies the SQL to create the table and indexes I used to model the problem – and in this posting I’ll explain the problem and answer the central question.
I’ve just had cause to resurrect a blog note I wrote three years ago. The note says that an anomaly I discovered in 22.214.171.124 wasfixed in 10.2.0.3 – and this is true for the simple example in the posting; but a recent question on the OTN database forum has shown that the bug still appears in more complex cases. Here’s some code to create a table and two indexes:
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: