Most execution plans can be interpreted by following few basic rules (in TOP, Chapter 6, I provide such a list of rules). Nevertheless, there are some special cases. One of them is when an index scan, in addition to the access predicate, has a filter predicate applying a subquery.
The following execution plan, taken from Enterprise Manager 11.2, is an example (click on the image to increase its size):

Notes:
I2 index. Unfortunately this is wrong. In fact the first operation being executed is the scan of the I1 index. This is a bug in Enterprise Manager. I wanted to show you this example to demonstrate that not only for us it might be difficult to correctly interpret an execution plan IS NOT NULL is also wrong. This is not a bug, however. It is a limitation in the current implementation. The problem is that in some cases the V$SQL_PLAN and V$SQL_PLAN_STATISTICS_ALL views are not able to show all the necessary details.Without seeing the query on which this execution plan is based, it is not obvious at all to know what’s going on. So, here is the query:
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE n1 = 8 AND n2 IN (SELECT t2.n1 FROM t2, t3 WHERE t2.id = t3.id AND t3.n1 =![]()
Based on the query it is essential to point out that the access predicate "T2"."N1"=:B1 cannot be evaluated and, therefore, the scan of the I2 index cannot be carried out, without having a value passed through the B1 bind variable. In other words, without knowing the value of T1.N2.
To describe how this execution plan is carried out, let’s have a look to the information provided by the DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY function (which does not expose the limitation related to the filter predicate).
-----------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name |
-----------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | T1 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | I1 |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | |
| 4 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T2 |
|* 5 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | I2 |
|* 6 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T3 |
|* 7 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | I3 |
-----------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - access("N1"=8)
filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ LEADING ("T2" "T3") USE_NL ("T3") INDEX
("T3" "I3") INDEX_RS_ASC ("T2" "I2") */ 0 FROM "T3" "T3","T2" "T2" WHERE
"T2"."N1"=:B1 AND "T3"."N1"=8 AND "T2"."ID"="T3"."ID"))
5 - access("T2"."N1"=:B1)
6 - filter("T2"."ID"="T3"."ID")
7 - access("T3"."N1"=8)The operations are carried out as follows:
"N1"=8 by scanning the I1 index.T2 table, the inner loop accesses the T3 table. "T2"."N1"=:B1 by scanning the I2 index. Based on the rowid returned by the index access the T2 table is accessed (operation 4)."T3"."N1"=8 by scanning the I3 index. Based on the rowid returned by the index access the T3 table is accessed (operation 6) and the filter predicate "T2"."ID"="T3"."ID" (the join condition) is applied. By the way, it is interesting to notice that, contrary to the join condition is not applied as an access predicate, as it usually happens.T1 table (operation 1). The row extracted from this operation is sent to the caller.All in all, this is a very special execution plan…
In summary, be careful when you see an index scan with a filter predicate applying a subquery. The execution plan might not be carried out as you expect at first sight. It is also essential to point out that in such a case the predicate information is essential to fully understand what’s going on.
Recent comments
17 weeks 4 days ago
27 weeks 2 days ago
29 weeks 15 hours ago
32 weeks 2 days ago
34 weeks 3 days ago
44 weeks 16 hours ago
45 weeks 4 days ago
46 weeks 4 days ago
46 weeks 5 days ago
49 weeks 3 days ago