CBO

CBO, FIRST_ROWS and VIEW misestimate

There are several bugs with the optimizer in FIRST_ROWS mode. Here is one I encountered during a 10.2.0.4 to 12.2.0.1 migration when a view had an ‘order by’ in its definition.

Here is the test case that reproduces the problem.

A big table:

SQL> create table DEMO1 (n constraint DEMO1_N primary key,x,y) as select 1/rownum,'x','y' from xmltable('1 to 1000000');
Table DEMO1 created.

with a view on it, and that view has an order by:

SQL> create view DEMOV as select * from DEMO1 order by n desc;
View DEMOV created.

and another table to join to:

SQL> create table DEMO2 (x constraint DEMO2_X primary key) as select dummy from dual;
Table DEMO2 created.

My query reads the view in a subquery, adds a call to a PL/SQL function, and joins the result with the other table:

Join Elimination Bug

A few years ago a bug relating to join elimination showed up in a comment to a post I’d done about the need to keep on testing and learining. The bug was visible in version 11.2.0.2 and, with a script to replay it, I’d found that it had disappeared by 11.2.0.4.

Today I had a reason to rediscover the script, and decided to test it against 12.2.0.1 – and found that the bug was still present.

Here’s the model:

OFE

The title is a well-known shorthand for parameter optimizer_features_enable and it has been the topic of a recent blog post by Mike Dietrich in which he decries the practice of switching the parameter back to an older version on an upgrade (even though, as he points out, Oracle support has been known to recommend it and the manuals describe – though not with 100% accuracy – why you might do so).

I am one of the people who will suggest that on the upgrade a client should consider setting the optimizer_features_enable to the version just left behind as a strategy for getting to a newer version of the base code while minimising the threat of plan instability, so I’m going to play devil’s advocate in this case even though, as we shall see, I am nearly 100% in favour of Mike’s complaint.

Parallelism

Headline – if you don’t want to read the note – the /*+ parallel(N) */ hint doesn’t mean a query will use parallel execution, even if there are enough parallel execution server processes to make it possible. The parallel(N) hint tells the optimizer to consider the cost of using parallel execution for each path that it examines, but ultimately the optimizer will still take the lowest cost path (bar the odd few special cases) and that path could turn out to be a serial path.

The likelihood of parallelism appearing for a given query changes across versions of Oracle so you can be fooled into thinking you’re seeing bugs as you test new versions but it’s (almost certainly) the same old rule being applied in different circumstances. Here’s an example – which I’ll start off on 11.2.0.4:

Bushy Joins – a closer look

When 12.2 came out most of the (optimizer) focus was around SPD and how to avoid the challenges from 12.1. Still 12.2 introduced several (less acclaimed) optimizations including “Bushy Join” transformation, which is interesting since (I think, corrections welcome) Bushy Join concept isn’t necessarily tied to query transformation in general, especially before 12.2 (some reference about “manual” bushy joins here and here) or in other RDBMS (a manual example on SQL Server here).
Anyway being the CBO way of improving our code query transformations here we go again.

SQLTXPLAIN vs SQLd360, differences and similarities

When talking tools to help with SQL Tuning the question on SQLTXPLAIN vs SQLd360 comes out very often. “What’s the difference?”, “Which one should I use?”, “Why another tool?” are probably the top ones </p />
</p></div>

    	  	<div class=

Character selectivity

A recent OTN posting asked how the optimizer dealt with “like” predicates for character types quoting the DDL and a query that I had published some time ago in a presentation I had done with Kyle Hailey. I thought that I had already given a detailed answer somewhere on my blog (or even in the presentation) but found that I couldn’t track down the necessary working, so here’s a repeat of the question and a full explanation of the working.

The query is very simple, and the optimizer’s arithmetic takes an “obvious” strategy in the arithmetic. Here’s the sample query, with the equiavalent query that we can use to do the calculation:

Index out of range

I’ve waxed lyrical in the past about creating suitable column group statistics whenever you drop an index because even when the optimizer doesn’t use an index in its execution path it might have used the number of distinct keys of the index (user_indexes.distinct_keys) in its estimates of cardinality.

min/max Upgrade

A question came up on the OTN database forum a little while ago about a very simple query that was taking different execution paths on two databases with the same table and index definitions and similar data. In one database the plan used the “index full scan (min/max)” operation while the other database used a brute force “index fast full scan” operation.

Join Elimination

A question has just appeared on OTN describing a problem where code that works in 11g doesn’t work in 12c (exact versions not specified). The code in question is a C-based wrapper for some SQL, and the problem is a buffer overflow problem. The query supplied is as follows:


select T1.C1 from T1, T2 where T1.C1 = T2.D1;

The problem is that this works in 11g where the receiving (C) variable is declared as

char myBuffer [31];

but it doesn’t work in 12c unless the receiving variable is declared as: