# Index Bouncy Scan 2

I wrote a note some time last year about taking advantage of the “index range scan (min/max)” operation in a PL/SQL loop to find the small number distinct values in a large single column index efficiently (for example an index that was not very efficient but existed to avoid the “foreign key locking” problem. The resulting comments included pointers to other articles that showed pure SQL solutions to the same problem using recursive CTEs (“with” subqueries) from Markus Winand and Sayan Malakshinov: both writers also show examples of extending the technique to cover more cases than the simple list of distinct values.

The topic came up again on the ODC (OTN) database forum a couple of days ago; one of the replies linked back to my original posting, another gave the recursive solution for a single column index – so I ended up seeing the following question twice, once as a comment on my blog, once in the forum: “Can you extend this method to a two column index, what about an N column index ?”

Here’s a walk-through of working out one possible solution for the two-column requirement – how to find all the distinct combinations for the first two columns of a very large index without having to scan and aggregate the whole index. We start with a suitable table and index.

```
rem
rem     Script:         bouncy_index.sql
rem     Author:         Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:          Apr 2018
rem     Purpose:
rem
rem     Last tested
rem             12.2.0.1
rem             12.1.0.2
rem             11.2.0.4
rem

create table t1
segment creation immediate
nologging
as
with generator as (
select
rownum id
from dual
connect by
level <= 1e4 -- > comment to avoid WordPress format issue
)
select
rownum                          id,
mod(rownum-1,3)                 val1,
mod(rownum-1,10)                val2,
from
generator       v1
order by
dbms_random.value
;

begin
dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
ownname     => user,
tabname     => 'T1',
method_opt  => 'for all columns size 1'
);
end;
/

alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key(val1, val2, id);

```

I’ve created a table with 3 values for val1, 10 values for val2, with a total of 30 combinations. The addition of the primary key starting with (val1, val2) is just a lazy way to ensure that I have a suitable index AND val1 and val2 are both declared not null.

With this data my first step will be to demonstrate the recursive CTE (“with” subquery) used by Andrew Sayer in the ODC posting to get the distinct values for val1 using three index “index range scan (min/max)”probes. I’ve included the in-memory execution plan with rowsource execution stats to show that this does a minimal amount of work.

The results in this note come from 12.2.0.1:

```
set serveroutput off
alter session set statistics_level = all;

with bouncy (val1)
as (
select  min(val1) val1
from    t1
union all
select  (select min(t1.val1) val1 from t1 where t1.val1 > bouncy.val1) val1
from    bouncy
where   bouncy.val1 is not null
)
select  *
from    bouncy
where   bouncy.val1 is not null
order by
val1
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'cost allstats last'));

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                  | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers | Reads  |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                           |       |      1 |        |    19 (100)|      3 |00:00:00.01 |       7 |      4 |       |       |          |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                             |       |      1 |      2 |    19   (6)|      3 |00:00:00.01 |       7 |      4 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|*  2 |   VIEW                                     |       |      1 |      2 |    18   (0)|      3 |00:00:00.01 |       7 |      4 |       |       |          |
|   3 |    UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST|       |      1 |        |            |      4 |00:00:00.01 |       7 |      4 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|   4 |     SORT AGGREGATE                         |       |      1 |      1 |            |      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |      1 |       |       |          |
|   5 |      INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)             | T1_PK |      1 |      1 |     2   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |      1 |       |       |          |
|   6 |     SORT AGGREGATE                         |       |      3 |      1 |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |      3 |       |       |          |
|   7 |      FIRST ROW                             |       |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |      3 |       |       |          |
|*  8 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)           | T1_PK |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |      3 |       |       |          |
|   9 |     RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                    |       |      4 |        |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter("BOUNCY"."VAL1" IS NOT NULL)
8 - access("T1"."VAL1">:B1)

```

As you can see I’ve done an “index full scan (min/max)” as the first step of the recursive query, visiting just two buffered blocks (the index leaf-block count is 27 – roughly 9 per value of val1 – so Oracle is clearly doing an efficient access for that value, it’s not rally a “full” scan. We then see 3 “index range scan (min/max)” at roughly 2 buffer visits each to collect the remaining values. (There’s probably a small saving in buffer gets due to the pinning that takes place).

So we can get the val1 values very easily and efficiently with this recurstive CTE technology. Let’s write some code that uses the same technology to find the val2 values for each possible val1 value in turn:

```with bounce2 (val1, val2)
as (
select val1, val2 from (
select  0 val1, 0 val2 from dual
union all
select 1,0 from dual
union all
select 2,0 from dual
)
union all
select  bounce2.val1, (select min(t1.val2) val2 from t1 where t1.val1 = bounce2.val1 and t1.val2 > bounce2.val2) val2
from    bounce2
where   bounce2.val2 is not null
--      and     bounce2.val1 is not null
)
select * from bounce2
where
bounce2.val2 is not null
and     bounce2.val1 is not null        -- > redundant predicate
order by
val1, val2
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'cost allstats last'));

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                  | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers | Reads  |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                           |       |      1 |        |    27 (100)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |       |       |          |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                             |       |      1 |      6 |    27   (4)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|*  2 |   VIEW                                     |       |      1 |      6 |    26   (0)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |       |       |          |
|   3 |    UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST|       |      1 |        |            |     33 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|   4 |     VIEW                                   |       |      1 |      3 |     6   (0)|      3 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
|   5 |      UNION-ALL                             |       |      1 |        |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
|   6 |       FAST DUAL                            |       |      1 |      1 |     2   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
|   7 |       FAST DUAL                            |       |      1 |      1 |     2   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
|   8 |       FAST DUAL                            |       |      1 |      1 |     2   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
|   9 |     SORT AGGREGATE                         |       |     30 |      1 |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |       |       |          |
|  10 |      FIRST ROW                             |       |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |       |       |          |
|* 11 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)           | T1_PK |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |     24 |       |       |          |
|  12 |     RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                    |       |     11 |        |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |      0 |       |       |          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter(("BOUNCE2"."VAL2" IS NOT NULL AND "BOUNCE2"."VAL1" IS NOT NULL))
11 - access("T1"."VAL1"=:B1 AND "T1"."VAL2">:B2)

```

In this example of the code the second half of the CTE looks remarkably similar to the previous statement – except I now have a two-column CTE and I’ve included an equality predicate against val1 based on the first of the two columns. In the first half of the code I’ve cheated (as a temporary measure) and supplied three rows of data which list the three distinct values of val1 with their associated minimum values for val2.

The execution plan shows that I’ve done 30 “index range scan (min/max)” of the index with 32 buffer visits. And that’s exactly the right number of probes to return my result set. So if I can manage to generate the starting values efficiently I can execute the whole query efficiently. So let’s find a way of changing that “union all on dual” fudge into a generic statement. Let’s replace it with a recursive CTE:

```
with bounce1(val1, val2) as (
select val1, val2
from    (
select
/*+ index(t1) */
val1, val2,
row_number() over(order by val1, val2) rn
from    t1
)
where
rn = 1
union all
select
(select min(t1.val1) val1 from t1 where t1.val1 > bounce1.val1) val1,
(select min(t1.val2) val2 from t1 where t1.val1 > bounce1.val1 and rownum = 1) val2
from    bounce1
where   bounce1.val1 is not null
),
bounce2 (val1, val2)
as (
select  val1, val2
from    bounce1
--      where   bounce1.val1 is not null
union all
select  bounce2.val1, (select min(t1.val2) val2 from t1 where t1.val1 = bounce2.val1 and t1.val2 > bounce2.val2) val2
from    bounce2
where   bounce2.val2 is not null
--      and     bounce2.val1 is not null
)
select * from bounce2
where
bounce2.val2 is not null
and     bounce2.val1 is not null        -- > redundant predicate
order by
val1, val2
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'cost allstats last'));

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                    | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                             |       |      1 |        |   189 (100)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      45 |       |       |          |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                               |       |      1 |      4 |   189   (2)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      45 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|*  2 |   VIEW                                       |       |      1 |      4 |   188   (2)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      45 |       |       |          |
|   3 |    UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST  |       |      1 |        |            |     34 |00:00:00.01 |      45 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|   4 |     VIEW                                     |       |      1 |      2 |    87   (2)|      4 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |       |       |          |
|   5 |      UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST|       |      1 |        |            |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|*  6 |       VIEW                                   |       |      1 |      1 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |
|*  7 |        WINDOW NOSORT STOPKEY                 |       |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 | 73728 | 73728 |          |
|   8 |         INDEX FULL SCAN                      | T1_PK |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |
|   9 |       SORT AGGREGATE                         |       |      3 |      1 |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |       |       |          |
|  10 |        FIRST ROW                             |       |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |       |       |          |
|* 11 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)           | T1_PK |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |       |       |          |
|  12 |       SORT AGGREGATE                         |       |      3 |      1 |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|* 13 |        COUNT STOPKEY                         |       |      3 |        |            |      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|* 14 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN                     | T1_PK |      3 |    500 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|  15 |       RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                    |       |      4 |        |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |       |       |          |
|  16 |     SORT AGGREGATE                           |       |     30 |      1 |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|  17 |      FIRST ROW                               |       |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|* 18 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)             | T1_PK |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|  19 |     RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                      |       |     11 |        |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |       |       |          |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter(("BOUNCE2"."VAL2" IS NOT NULL AND "BOUNCE2"."VAL1" IS NOT NULL))
6 - filter("RN"=1)
7 - filter(ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY "VAL1","VAL2")<=1) 11 - access("T1"."VAL1">:B1)
13 - filter(ROWNUM=1)
14 - access("T1"."VAL1">:B1)
18 - access("T1"."VAL1"=:B1 AND "T1"."VAL2">:B2)

```

Again we see 30 probes using “index range scan (min/max)” with 32 buffer gets to get 30 rows; plus a further 13 buffer gets to generate the three driving rows. The 13 buffer gets break down to: 2 to get the minimum (val1, val2) combination using an “index full scan (min/max)”, then 5 for the probes to get the three minimum values for val1, and 6 for the probes to get the three corresponding minimum values of val2.

You’ll notice that I’ve got various “is not null” predicates scattered throughout the code. In some cases this is to stop Oracle from running into an infinite loop and reporting Oracle error: ORA-32044: cycle detected while executing recursive WITH query” This will occur because of the way that “(select max()…)” inline scalar subqueries returning a null if there is no data found which would lead to the next cycle of the recursive descent taking that null as an input – hence starting the infinite recursion. In some cases the “is not null” predicates are my default pattern for recurstive CTEs and some of them could probably be removed with no change in meaning (or workload).

The /*+ index() */ hint in the starting point for bounce1 was necessary to avoid an “index fast full scan” in 12.2; but that was purely a case of the statistics – number of distinct values, leaf_block count, etc – making the optimizer pick an option that was appropriate for this tiny data set, but not appropriate for the demonstration.  In fact this looks like the side effect of two defects in the 12.1 optimizer code, of which only one has been fixed in 12.2.

### Optimizer Limitations

Here’s an extract from the execution plan for the final query with an /*+ index(t1) */ hint in place. The extract is identical for 12.1.0.2 and 12.2.0.1:

```--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                    | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
|*  6 |       VIEW                                   |       |      1 |      1 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |
|*  7 |        WINDOW NOSORT STOPKEY                 |       |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 | 73728 | 73728 |          |
|   8 |         INDEX FULL SCAN                      | T1_PK |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |

```

You’ll notice the Cost at operation 8 is appropriate for a real (i.e. all leaf blocks) full scan of the index. (The leaf_block value was 27 as I mentioned earlier on). You’ll also see that the OMem (PGA requirement for optimum workarea operation) figure is consistent with Oracle processing 10,000 rows in the index. Since the optimizer managed to work out that it could do a full scan with nosort and stopkey it looks a little surprising that the algorithms didn’t manage to make some allowance for the limited access that would occur. (I’d view this as a current limitation, rather than a bug, though).

Now compare the equivalent extracts when we hint an index fast full scan 12.1.0.2 first, then 12.2.0.1:

```12.1.0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                    | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
|*  6 |       VIEW                                   |       |      1 |      1 |    39   (8)|      1 |00:00:00.03 |      32 |       |       |          |
|*  7 |        WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK               |       |      1 |  10000 |    39   (8)|      1 |00:00:00.03 |      32 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|   8 |         INDEX FAST FULL SCAN                 | T1_PK |      1 |  10000 |     5   (0)|  10000 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |

12.2.0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                    | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
|*  6 |       VIEW                                   |       |      1 |      1 |     7  (29)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |      34 |       |       |          |
|*  7 |        WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK               |       |      1 |  10000 |     7  (29)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |      34 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|   8 |         INDEX FAST FULL SCAN                 | T1_PK |      1 |  10000 |     5   (0)|  10000 |00:00:00.01 |      34 |       |       |          |

```

In both cases the cost of the index fast full scan is the same – and much cheaper; but in 12.1.0.2 the cost of the query looks as if it is allowing for sorting (and spilling) the entire 10,000 rows of returned from the index fast full scan (even though the OMem indicates otherwise), while the cost in 12.2.0.1 looks as if it recognises that it just has to do a running comparison through the data set as it returns, keeping only the current minimum in memory at any one moment. This clearly matches our expectations of how Oracle ought to behave, which is why I’d call this a bug in 12.1, fixed by 12.2.

The dramatic change in cost of operation 7 on the upgrade explains the change in plan and the necessity for the /*+ index(t1) */ hint – but if the “first row” predicate were also reflected in the costing then the cost of the “stopkey” index full scan would drop to 2 (probably) and the original 12.1 path would be re-appear.

### Footnote

I don’t think there’s a lot of scope for improving the efficiency of this query for getting the (relatively) small number of distinct combinations from the first two columns of a very large index – but there are some very clever SQL bunnies on the ODC forum, so I won’t be surprised if someone comes up with a better solution.

### Update

Well it didn’t take very long for someone to improve my SQL. Andrew Sayer took advantage of the “cross apply” feature of Oracle 12c to get rid of that nasty little bit of SQL where I’d used two scalar subqueries in the select list of the driving CTE. Here are the before and after versions of that fragment:

```
select
(select min(t1.val1) val1 from t1 where t1.val1 > bounce1.val1) val1,
(select min(t1.val2) val2 from t1 where t1.val1 > bounce1.val1 and rownum = 1) val2
from    bounce1
where   bounce1.val1 is not null

select
ca.val1 ,ca.val2
from    bounce1
cross  apply (select val1, val2
from  (select /*+ index(t1) no_index_ffs(t1) */
val1, val2
from    t1
where   t1.val1 > bounce1.val1
and     rownum = 1
)
) ca
where  bounce1.val1 is not null

```

This “cross apply” has the effect of running a correlated subquery for every row selected from (this level of) bounce1 and then joining the results back to (this level of) bounce1. With this change in place (and with my original data set) the following plan appears:

```
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                    | Name            | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                             |                 |      1 |        |   161 (100)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      40 |       |       |          |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                               |                 |      1 |      4 |   161   (2)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      40 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|*  2 |   VIEW                                       |                 |      1 |      4 |   160   (2)|     30 |00:00:00.01 |      40 |       |       |          |
|   3 |    UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST  |                 |      1 |        |            |     33 |00:00:00.01 |      40 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|*  4 |     VIEW                                     |                 |      1 |      2 |    73   (2)|      3 |00:00:00.01 |       8 |       |       |          |
|   5 |      UNION ALL (RECURSIVE WITH) BREADTH FIRST|                 |      1 |        |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       8 |  1024 |  1024 |          |
|*  6 |       VIEW                                   |                 |      1 |      1 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |
|*  7 |        WINDOW NOSORT STOPKEY                 |                 |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      1 |00:00:00.01 |       2 | 73728 | 73728 |          |
|   8 |         INDEX FULL SCAN                      | T1_PK           |      1 |  10000 |    29   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       2 |       |       |          |
|   9 |       NESTED LOOPS                           |                 |      3 |      1 |    43   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|  10 |        RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                   |                 |      3 |        |            |      3 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |       |       |          |
|  11 |        VIEW                                  | VW_LAT_A83890C2 |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|  12 |         VIEW                                 |                 |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|* 13 |          COUNT STOPKEY                       |                 |      3 |        |            |      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|* 14 |           INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T1_PK           |      3 |      1 |     2   (0)|      2 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|  15 |     SORT AGGREGATE                           |                 |     30 |      1 |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|  16 |      FIRST ROW                               |                 |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|* 17 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)             | T1_PK           |     30 |      1 |     2   (0)|     27 |00:00:00.01 |      32 |       |       |          |
|  18 |     RECURSIVE WITH PUMP                      |                 |     11 |        |            |     30 |00:00:00.01 |       0 |       |       |          |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter(("BOUNCE2"."VAL2" IS NOT NULL AND "BOUNCE2"."VAL1" IS NOT NULL))
4 - filter("BOUNCE1"."VAL1" IS NOT NULL)
6 - filter("RN"=1)
7 - filter(ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY "VAL1","VAL2")<=1) 13 - filter(ROWNUM=1) 14 - access("T1"."VAL1">"BOUNCE1"."VAL1")
17 - access("T1"."VAL1"=:B1 AND "T1"."VAL2">:B2)

```

If you compare this with my final plan further up the page you can see that operations 9 – 14 look completely different and while my plan shows two “sort aggregate” probes against t1_pk, Andrew’s plan does an interesting “nested loop” driven by a “recursive pump” that effectively halves the work done in this section of the plan.

Another little detail about this plan that I found interesting was that the “cross apply” had been converted to a “lateral join” internally – note the VW_LAT_xxxx view name. This was a little irritating because I had actually tried to write the query with a lateral join in the first place and ended up getting the wrong results. I’ve got a follow-up posting about this – but (spoiler alert) I think it means I’ve found another bug.