Search

Top 60 Oracle Blogs

Recent comments

12c

Index Bouncy Scan 4

There’s always another hurdle to overcome. After I’d finished writing up the “index bouncy scan” as an efficient probing mechanism to find the combinations of the first two columns (both declared not null) of a very large index a follow-up question appeared almost immediately: “what if it’s a partitioned index”.

Min/Max upgrade

Here’s a nice little optimizer enhancement that appeared in 12.2 to make min/max range scans (and full scans) available in more circumstances. Rather than talk through it, here’s a little demonstration:

Index Bouncy Scan 3

This is a follow-up to a problem I had with yesterday’s example of using recursive CTEs to “bounce” along a multi-column index to pick out the unique set of combinations of the first two columns. Part of the resulting query used a pair of aggregate scalar subqueries in a select list – and Andrew Sayer improved on my query by introducing a “cross apply” (which I simply hadn’t thought of) which the optimizer transformed into a lateral view (which I had thought of, but couldn’t get to work).

Upgrades

One of my maxims for Oracle performance is: “Don’t try to be too clever”. Apart from the obvious reason that no-one else may be able to understand how to modify your code if the requirements change at a future date, there’s always the possibility that an Oracle upgrade will mean some clever trick you implemented will simply stop working.

While searching for information about a possible Oracle bug recently I noticed the following fix control (v$system_fix_control) in 12.2.0.1:

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.

Answer: Anything Wrong With Query Performance? (Red Right Hand)

I of course attract a highly clever readership :). As some have commented, for a single table to require 1000+ consistent gets to retrieve 1000 rows implies that each row needs to be accessed from a different block. This in turn implies the Clustering Factor for this index to be relatively bad and the associated […]

exp catch

No-one should be using exp/imp to export and import data any more, they should be using the datapump equivalents expdp/impdp – but if you’re on an older (pre-12c) version of Oracle and still using exp/imp to do things like moving tables with their production statistics over to test systems then be careful that you don’t fall into an obsolescence trap when you finally upgrade to 12c (or Oracle 18).

exp/imp will mess up some of your histograms if you’re still using them to move tables/statistics in 12c.

Keeping Intervals

I’ve recently been reminded of a blog post I wrote a couple of years ago that discussed the issue of running into the hard limit of 2^20 -1 as the number of segments for a (composite) partitioned table – a problem that could arise in a relatively short time if you used a large number of hash subpartitions in an interval/hash composite partitioned table (you get about 2 years and 10 months of daily partitions at 1,024 subpartitions per day, for example).

Improve Data Clustering on Multiple Columns Concurrently (Two Suns in the Sunset)

I’ve had a couple of recent discussions around clustering and how if you attempt to improve the clustering of a table based on a column, you thereby ruin the current clustering that might exist for a different column. The common wisdom being you can only order the data one way and if you change the […]

Match_recognise – 2

In my previous post I presented a warning about the potential cost of sorting and the cost of failing to find a match after each pass of a long search. In a comment on that post Stew Ashton reminded me that the cost of repeatedly trying to find a match starting from “the next row down” could be less of a threat than the cost of “back-tracking” before moving to the next row down.

Taking the example from the previous posting to explain – the requirement was for customers who had executed a transaction in September but not October, and a match_recognize() clause suggested on the ODC (formerly OTN) database forum to implement this requirement was as follows: