One of the sad things about trying to keep on top of Oracle is that there are so many little things that could go wrong and take a long time to identify. In part this is why I try to accumulate test cases for all the oddities and anomalies I come across as I travel around the world – if I’ve spent the time recreating a problem I’ll probably remember it the next time I see the symptoms.
July 5, 2013
June 28, 2013
Just one of those little snippets about 12c that might help someone.
Further to an earlier post, online rebuild works in 12c even when the key is “too long”. The internal code has changed completely, and there is no sign of the problematic journal table that caused the problem in earlier versions.
June 23, 2013
In my last post I made a comment about how the optimizer will use the new format of the index hint to identify an index that is an exact match if it can, and any index that starts with the same columns (in the right order) if it can’t find an exact match. It’s fairly easy to demonstrate the behaviour in 11g by examining the 10053 (CBO) trace file generated by a simple, single table, query – in fact, this is probably a case that Doug Burns might want to cite as an example of how, sometimes, the 10053 is easy to interpret (in little patches):
June 21, 2013
I’ll probably have to file this one under “Optimizer ignoring hints” – except that it should also go under “bugs”, and that’s one of the get-out clauses I use in my “hints are not hints” argument.
Sometimes an invisible index isn’t completely invisible.
May 9, 2013
Cost Based Oracle – Fundamentals (November 2005)
But the most interesting function for our purposes is sys_op_countchg(). Judging from its name, this function is probably counting changes, and the first input parameter is the block ID portion (object_id, relative file number, and block number) of the table’s rowid, so the function is clearly matching our notional description of how the clustering_factor is calculated. But what is that 1 we see as the second parameter?
When I first understood how the clustering_factor was defined, I soon realized that its biggest flaw was that Oracle wasn’t remembering recent history as it walked the index; it only remembered the previous table block so that it could check whether the latest row was in the same table block as last time or in a new table block. So when I saw this function, my first guess (or hope) was that the second parameter was a method of telling Oracle to remember a list of previous block visits as it walked the index.
And finally, Oracle Corp. had implemented an official interface to the second parameter of sys_op_countchg() – provided you install the right patch – through a new table (or schema, or database) preference type available to the dbms_stats.set_table_prefs() procedure.
March 4, 2013
I don’t think this is likely to happen on a production system (until 12c) – but look what you can do if you try hard enough:
1 select 2 index_name, column_name from user_ind_columns 3 where 4 table_name = 'T1' 5 order by 6* index_name , column_position SQL> / INDEX_NAME COLUMN_NAME -------------------- -------------------- T1_I1 N1 V1 T1_I2 N1 V1 4 rows selected.
That’s a straight cut-n-paste from an Oracle 188.8.131.52 SQL*Plus session. (You can tell I typed it in real time because I missed the return before the FROM, and couldn’t be bothered to go back and do it again ;) )
January 10, 2013
This is the text of an article I published in the UKOUG magazine a few years ago, but it caught my eye while I was browsing through my knowledge base recently, and it’s still relevant. I haven’t altered the original apart from adding a couple of very brief comments in brackets [Ed: like this].
January 6, 2013
Just a quick note to say that I found a blog over the weekend with a number of interesting posts, so I thought I’d pass it on: http://www.bobbydurrettdba.com/
There’s a really cute example (complete with test case) of an optimizer bug (possibly only in 11.1) in the December archive: http://www.bobbydurrettdba.com/2012/12/04/index-causes-poor-performance-in-query-that-doesnt-use-it/
January 3, 2013
Here’s a question that is NOT a trick question, it’s demonstrating an example of optimizer behaviour that might come as a surprise.
I have an index (addr_id0050, effective_date), the first column is numeric, the second is a date. Here’s a query with an execution plan that uses that index:
November 23, 2012
Here’s a funny little glitch – typical of the sort of oddity that creeps into the data dictionary from time to time – cut-n-pasted from 184.108.40.206:
October 23, 2012
A recent question on OTN asked how you could model a case where Oracle had the choice between a “perfect” index for a range scan and an index that could be used for an index skip scan and choose the latter path even though it was clearly (to the human eye) the less sensible choice. There have been a number of wierd and wonderful anomalies with the index skip scan and bad choice over the years, and this particular case is just one of many oddities I have seen in the past – so I didn’t think it would be hard to model one (in fact, I thought I already had at least two examples somewhere in my library – but I couldn’t find them).
Take a data set with two columns, call them id1 and id2, and create indexes on (id1), and (id2, id1). Generate the id1 column as a wide range of cyclic values, generate the id2 set with a small number of repetitive values so that a large number of physically adjacent rows hold the same value. The clustering_factor on the (id1) index will be very large, the clustering_factor on the (id2, id1) index will be relatively small because it will be controlled largely by the repetitive id2 value. Here’s the data set:
October 4, 2012
Another little detail that Hermann Baer mentioned in his presentation yesterday was the ability to create multiple indexes with the same column definition – something which currently gets you Oracle error “ORA-01408: such column list already indexed.”
No details, and there’s always the “safe harbour” slide of course – the one which says seomthing about the presentation being only an indication of current thinking and nothing is guaranteed to appear.
Having said that, this looks like an interesting option for those (possibly rare) occasions when you want to change a unique index into a non-unique index (for example, to change a unique constraint to deferrable). Rather than having to drop the index and create a new one – leaving the table unindexed while the index builds, you appear to have the option to: “create new index online”, “drop old index”. Moving a primary key constraint from one index to the other might not be so easy, of course, especially if there are foreign keys in place – but this certainly looks like a helpful step. [Update: actually it's easy to move the constraint - as I subsequently found in this post.]
Details to follow when 12c becomes available.
Update Sept 2013
Although you can create multiple indexes with the same column definition, only one of them can be visible at any time – so this should remove the temptation that Richard describes in his comment below. It won’t stop people creating “duplicates”, though, and leaving some of them invisible for a while just in case they need to change their minds. Always keep firm control of your indexing.
September 18, 2012
Occasionally I come across complaints that dbms_stats is not obeying the estimate_percent when sampling data and is therefore taking more time than it “should” when gathering stats. The complaint, when I have seen it, always seems to be about the sample size Oracle chose for indexes.
There is a simple but (I believe) undocumented reason for this: because indexes are designed to collate similar data values they are capable of accentuating any skew in the data distribution, which means a sample taken from a small number of leaf blocks can be highly misleading as a guide to the whole index – so Oracle aims for a minimum sample size for gathering index stats.
I’ve found remnants of a note I wrote on comp.databases.oracle.server in December 2004 which claims that this limit (as of Oracle 9.2) was 919 leaf blocks – and I have a faint memory of discovering this figure in an official Metalink (MOS) note. I can’t find the note any more, but it’s easy enough to set up a test to see if the requirement still exists and if the limit is still the same. Here’s a test I ran recently on 220.127.116.11 using an 8KB block size:
September 11, 2012
A recent post on Oracle-l complained about an oddity when deleting through a function-based index.
I have a function based index but the CBO is not using it. The DML that I expect to have a plan with index range scan is doing a FTS. Its a simple DML that deletes 1000 rows at a time in a loop and is based on the column on which the FBI is created.
Although execution plans are mentioned, we don’t get to see the statement or the plan – and it’s always possible that there will be some clue in the (full) plan that tells us something about the code that the OP has forgotten to mention. However, function-based indexes have a little history of not doing quite what you expect, so I thought I’d take a quick look at the problem, starting with the simplest possible step – do function-based indexes and “normal” b-tree indexes behave differently on a delete. Here’s the data set I created for my test:
September 4, 2012
I’ve commented in the past about the strange stories you can find on the internet about how Oracle works and how sometimes, no matter how daft those stories seem, there might be something behind them. Here’s one such remark I came across a little while ago – published in two or three places this year:
“An index that enforces referential integrity cannot be rebuilt online.”
There are a couple of problems with this statement – first, of course, indexes don’t enforce referential integrity, though they may help to enforce uniqueness, and the so-called “foreign key” index may avoid a locking issue related to referential integrity: that’s splitting hairs a little bit, though, and we can probably guess what the author means by “indexes enforcing referential integrity”. (An example demonstrating the problem would have been useful, though – it would have saved me from writing this note, and it might save other people from jumping to the wrong conclusion and taking unsuitable action as a consequence.)
So here’s a simple test (run under 18.104.22.168):