Oracle Scratchpad

March 2, 2014

Auto Sample Size

Filed under: Function based indexes,Indexing,Infrastructure,IOT,LOBs,Oracle,Statistics — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:38 pm BST Mar 2,2014

In the past I have enthused mightily about the benefits of the approximate NDV mechanism and the benefit of using auto_sample_size to collect statistics in 11g; however, as so often happens with Oracle features, there’s a down-side or boundary condition, or edge case. I’ve already picked this up once as an addendum to an earlier blog note on virtual stats, which linked to an article on OTN describing how the time taken to collect stats on a table increased dramatically after the addition of an index – where the index had this definition:


create bitmap index i_s_rmp_eval_csc_msg_actions on
    s_rmp_evaluation_csc_message (
        decode(instr(xml_message_text,' '),0,0,1)
    )
;

As you might guess from the column name, this is an index based on an XML column, which is stored as a CLOB.

In a similar vein, I showed you a few days ago an old example I had of indexing a CLOB column with a call to dbms_lob.getlength(). Both index examples suffer from the same problem – to support the index Oracle creates a hidden (virtual) column on the table that can be used to hold statistics about the values of the function; actual calculated values for the function call are stored in the index but not on the table itself – but it’s important that the optimizer has the statistics about the non-existent column values.

So what happens when Oracle collects table statistics – if you’ve enable the approximate NDV feature Oracle does a 100% sample, which means it has to call the function for every single row in the table. You will appreciate that the decode(instr()) function on the LOB column is going to read every single LOB in turn from the table – it’s not surprising that the time taken to calculate stats on the table jumped from a few minutes to a couple of hours. What did surprise me was that my call to dbms_lob.getlength() also seemed to read every lob in my example rather than reading the “LOB Locator” data that’s stored in the row – one day I’ll take a look into why that happened.

Looking at these examples it’s probably safe to conclude that if you really need to index some very small piece of “flag” information from a LOB it’s probably best to store it as a real column on the table – perhaps populated through a trigger so you don’t have to trust every single piece of front-end code to keep it up to date. (It would be quite nice if Oracle gave us the option for a “derived” column – i.e. one that could be defined in the same sort of way as a virtual column, with the difference that it should be stored in the table.)

So virtual columns based on LOBs can create a performance problem for the approximate NDV mechanism;  but the story doesn’t stop there because there’s another “less commonly used” feature of Oracle that introduces a different threat – with no workaround – it’s the index organized table (IOT). Here’s a basic example:

create table iot1 (
        id1	number(7,0),
	id2	number(7,0),
	v1	varchar2(10),
	v2	varchar2(10),
	padding	varchar2(500),
        constraint iot1_pk primary key(id1, id2)
)
organization index
including id2
overflow
;

insert into iot1
with generator as (
	select	--+ materialize
		rownum id
	from dual
	connect by
		level <= 1e4
)
select
        mod(rownum,20)                  id1,
        trunc(rownum,100)               id2,
        to_char(mod(rownum,20))         v1,
        to_char(trunc(rownum,100))      v2,
        rpad('x',500,'x')               padding
from
	generator	v1,
	generator	v2
where
	rownum <= 1e5
;

commit;

alter system flush buffer_cache;

alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever';

begin
	dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
		ownname		 => user,
		tabname		 =>'IOT1',
		method_opt	 => 'for all columns size 1'
	);
end;
/

alter session set events '10046 trace name context off';

You’ll notice I’ve created the table then inserted the data – if I did a “create table as select” Oracle would have sorted the data before inserting it, and that would have helped to hide the problem I’m trying to demonstrate. As it is my overflow segment is very badly ordered relative to the “top” (i.e. index) segment – in fact I can see after I’ve collected stats on the table that the clustering_factor on the index is 100,000 – an exact match for the rows in the table.

Running 11.2.0.4, with a 1MB uniform extent, freelist management, and 8KB block size the index segment held 279 leaf blocks, the overflow segment (reported in view user_tables as SYS_IOT_OVER_81594) held 7,144 data blocks.

So what interesting things do we find in a 10046 trace file after gathering stats – here are the key details from the tkprof results:

SQL ID: 7ak95sy9m1s4f Plan Hash: 1508788224

select /*+  full(t)    no_parallel(t) no_parallel_index(t) dbms_stats
  cursor_sharing_exact use_weak_name_resl dynamic_sampling(0) no_monitoring
  no_substrb_pad  */to_char(count("ID1")),to_char(substrb(dump(min("ID1"),16,
  0,32),1,120)),to_char(substrb(dump(max("ID1"),16,0,32),1,120)),
  to_char(count("ID2")),to_char(substrb(dump(min("ID2"),16,0,32),1,120)),
  to_char(substrb(dump(max("ID2"),16,0,32),1,120)),to_char(count("V1")),
  to_char(substrb(dump(min("V1"),16,0,32),1,120)),
  to_char(substrb(dump(max("V1"),16,0,32),1,120)),to_char(count("V2")),
  to_char(substrb(dump(min("V2"),16,0,32),1,120)),
  to_char(substrb(dump(max("V2"),16,0,32),1,120)),to_char(count("PADDING")),
  to_char(substrb(dump(min("PADDING"),16,0,32),1,120)),
  to_char(substrb(dump(max("PADDING"),16,0,32),1,120))
from
 "TEST_USER"."IOT1" t  /* NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,
  NIL,NIL*/

call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        1      0.37       0.37       7423     107705          0           1
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
total        3      0.37       0.37       7423     107705          0           1

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 62     (recursive depth: 1)
Number of plan statistics captured: 1

Rows (1st) Rows (avg) Rows (max)  Row Source Operation
---------- ---------- ----------  ---------------------------------------------------
         1          1          1  SORT AGGREGATE (cr=107705 pr=7423 pw=0 time=377008 us)
    100000     100000     100000   APPROXIMATE NDV AGGREGATE (cr=107705 pr=7423 pw=0 time=426437 us cost=10 size=23944 card=82)
    100000     100000     100000    INDEX FAST FULL SCAN IOT1_PK (cr=107705 pr=7423 pw=0 time=298380 us cost=10 size=23944 card=82)(object id 85913)

********************************************************************************

SQL ID: 1ca2ug8s3mm5z Plan Hash: 2571749554

select /*+  no_parallel_index(t, "IOT1_PK")  dbms_stats cursor_sharing_exact
  use_weak_name_resl dynamic_sampling(0) no_monitoring no_substrb_pad
  no_expand index(t,"IOT1_PK") */ count(*) as nrw,count(distinct
  sys_op_lbid(85913,'L',t.rowid)) as nlb,null as ndk,
  sys_op_countchg(sys_op_lbid(85913,'O',"V1"),1) as clf
from
 "TEST_USER"."IOT1" t where "ID1" is not null or "ID2" is not null

call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        1      0.16       0.16          0     100280          0           1
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
total        3      0.16       0.16          0     100280          0           1

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 62     (recursive depth: 1)
Number of plan statistics captured: 1

Rows (1st) Rows (avg) Rows (max)  Row Source Operation
---------- ---------- ----------  ---------------------------------------------------
         1          1          1  SORT GROUP BY (cr=100280 pr=0 pw=0 time=162739 us)
    100000     100000     100000   INDEX FULL SCAN IOT1_PK (cr=100280 pr=0 pw=0 time=164597 us cost=6 size=5900000 card=100000)(object id 85913)

The first query collects table and column stats, and we can see that the approximate NDV method has been used because of the trailing text: /* NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL,NDV,NIL,NIL*/. In this statement the hint /*+ full(t) */ has been interpreted to mean an index fast full scan, which is what we see in the execution plan. Although there are only 279 blocks in the index and 7,144 blocks in the overflow we’ve done a little over 100,000 buffer visits because for every index entry in the IOT top we’ve done a “fetch by rowid” into the overflow segment (the session stats records these as “table fetch continued row”). Luckily I had a small table so all those visits were buffer gets; on a very large table it’s quite possible that a significant fraction of those buffer gets will turn into single block physical reads.

Not only have we done one buffer visit per row to allow us to calculate the approximate NDV for the table columns, we’ve done the same all over again so that we can calculate the clustering_factor of the index. This is a little surprising since the “rowid” for an item in the overflow section is stored in the index segment but (as you can see in the second query in the tkprof output) Oracle has used column v1 (the first in the overflow segment) in the call to the sys_op_countchg() function where the equivalent call for an ordinary index would use t.rowid so, presumably, the code HAS to access the overflow segment. The really strange thing about this is that the same SQL statement has a call to sys_op_lbid() which uses the (not supposed to exist in IOTs) rowid – so it looks as if it ought to be possible for sys_op_countchg() to do the same.

So – big warning on upgrading to 11g: if you’ve got IOTs with overflows and you switch to auto_sample_size and enable approximate NDV then the time taken to gather stats on those IOTs may (depending to a large extent on the data clustering) take much longer than it used to.

February 28, 2014

Empty Hash

Filed under: Bugs,CBO,Execution plans,Oracle,Parallel Execution — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:45 pm BST Feb 28,2014

A little while ago I highlighted a special case with the MINUS operator (that one of the commentators extended to include the INTERSECT operator) relating to the way the second subquery would take place even if the first subquery produced no rows. I’ve since had an email from an Oracle employee letting me know that the developers looked at this case and decided that it wasn’t feasible to address it because – taking a wider view point – if the query were to run parallel they would need a mechanism that allowed some synchronisation between slaves so that every slave could find out that none of the slaves had received no rows from the first subquery, and this was going to lead to hanging problems.

The email reminded me that there’s another issue of the same kind that I discovered several years ago – I thought I’d written it up, but maybe it was on a newsgroup or forum somewhere, I can’t find it on my blog or old website). The problem can be demonstrated by this example:

(more…)

February 26, 2014

Parallel Execution – 4

Filed under: Oracle,Parallel Execution — Jonathan Lewis @ 1:58 pm BST Feb 26,2014

I’m aware that in the previous article in this series I said I’d continue “in a few days” and it has now been more like 11 weeks – but finally I’ve got the time. In this article I’m going to talk primarily about Bloom filters and their impact on performance, but I’ll need to say something about the “virtual tables” and “parallel execution message size” before I begin. Take a look at this fragment of a parallel execution plan:

(more…)

Predicate Order

Filed under: Bugs,CBO,Execution plans,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 8:14 am BST Feb 26,2014

Common internet question: does the order of predicates in the where clause make a difference.
General answer: It shouldn’t, but sometimes it will thanks to defects in the optimizer.

There’s a nicely presented example on the OTN database forum where predicate order does matter (between 10.1.x.x and 11.1.0.7). Note particularly – there’s a script to recreate the issue; note, also, the significance of the predicate section of the execution plan.
It’s bug 6782665, fixed in 11.2.0.1

February 25, 2014

FBI Skip Scan

Filed under: Bugs,Function based indexes,Indexing,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:45 pm BST Feb 25,2014

A recent posting on the OTN database forum highlighted a bug (or defect, or limitation) in the way that the optimizer handles index skip scans with “function-based” indexes – it doesn’t do them. The defect has probably been around for a long time and demonstrates a common problem with testing Oracle – it’s very easy for errors in the slightly unusual cases to be missed; it also demonstrates a general principle that it can take some time for a (small) new feature to be applied consistently across the board.

The index definitions in the original posting included expressions like substr(nls_lower(colX), 1, 25), and it’s possible for all sorts of unexpected effects to appear when your code starts running into NLS  settings, so I’ve created a much simpler example. Here’s my table definition, with three index definitions:

(more…)

February 21, 2014

Indexing LOBs

Filed under: Function based indexes,Indexing,Infrastructure,LOBs,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:42 pm BST Feb 21,2014

Many years ago, possibly when most sites were still using Oracle 8i, a possible solution to a particular customer problem was to create a function-based index on a CLOB column using the dbms_lob.getlength() function call. I can’t find the notes explaining why this was necessary (I usually have some sort of clue – such as the client name – in the script, but in this case all I had was a comment that “the manuals say you can’t do this, but it works provided you wrap the dbms_lob call inside a deterministic function”).

I never worked out why the dbms_lob.getlength() function wasn’t declared as deterministic – especially since it came complete with a most restrictive restricts_references pragma – so I had just assumed there was probably some good reason based on strange side effects when national language charactersets came into play. But here’s a little detail I noticed recently about the dbms_lob.getlength() function: it became deterministic in 11g, so if the client decided to implement my suggestion (which included the usual sorts of warnings) it’s now legal !

Footnote – the length() function has been deterministic and usable with LOBs for a long time, certainly since late 9i, but in 8i length(lob_col) will produce Oracle error “ORA-00932: inconsistent datatypes”

Index Compression – aargh

Filed under: Bugs,compression,Indexing,Infrastructure,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 7:57 am BST Feb 21,2014

The problem with telling people that some feature of Oracle is a “good thing” is that some of those people will go ahead and use it; and if enough people use it some of them will discover a hitherto undiscovered defect. Almost inevitably the bug will turn out to be one of those “combinations” bugs that leaves you thinking: “Why the {insert preferred expression of disbelief here} should {feature X} have anything to do with {feature Y}”.

Here – based on index compression, as you may have guessed from the title – is one such bug. I got it first on 11.1.0.7, but it’s still there on 11.2.0.4 and 12.1.0.1

(more…)

February 16, 2014

Recursive subquery factoring

Filed under: Hints,Ignoring Hints,Oracle,Subquery Factoring,Tuning — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:11 pm BST Feb 16,2014

This is possibly my longest title to date – I try to keep them short enough to fit the right hand column of the blog without wrapping – but I couldn’t think of a good way to shorten it (Personally I prefer to use the expression CTE – common table expression – over “factored subquery” or “subquery factoring” or “with subquery”, and that would have achieved my goal, but might not have meant anything to most people.)

If you haven’t come across them before, recursive CTEs appeared in 11.2, are in the ANSI standard, and are (probably) viewed by Oracle as the strategic replacement for “connect by” queries. Here, to get things started, is a simple (and silly) example:

(more…)

February 14, 2014

12c Subquery Factoring

Filed under: 12c,Oracle,Subquery Factoring,Tuning — Jonathan Lewis @ 11:44 am BST Feb 14,2014

From time to time I’ve posted a reminder that subquery factoring (“with subquery”) can give you changes in execution plans even if the subquery that you’ve taken out of line is written back inline by Oracle rather than being materialized. This can still happen in 12c – here’s a sample query in the two forms with the result sets and execution plans.  First, the “factored” version:

(more…)

February 12, 2014

Caution – hints

Filed under: Hints,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:57 pm BST Feb 12,2014

Here’s a little example of why you should be very cautious about implementing undocumented discoveries. If you take a look at the view v$sql_hints in 11.2.0.4 you’ll discover a hint (no_)cluster_by_rowid; and if you look in v$parameter you’ll discover two new parameters _optimizer_cluster_by_rowid and _optimizer_cluster_by_rowid_control.

It doesn’t take much imagination to guess that the parameters and hint have something to do with the costs of accessing compressed data by rowid on an Exadata system (see, for example, this posting) and it’s very easy to check what the hint does:

(more…)

11.2.0.4 Upgrade

Filed under: Oracle,Upgrades — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:01 pm BST Feb 12,2014

A warning on Oracle-L from Chris Dunscombe: If you’ve got a large stats history – with lots of histogram data – then the upgrade could take an unexpectedly long time. Presumably the same is true if you upgrade from 11.2.0.3 (or earlier) to 12c.

 

February 10, 2014

Row Migration

Filed under: Infrastructure,Oracle,Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:55 pm BST Feb 10,2014

At one of the presentations I attended at RMOUG this year the presenter claimed that if a row kept increasing in size and had to migrate from block to block as a consequence then each migration of that row would leave a pointer in the previous block so that an indexed access to the row would start at the original table block and have to follow an ever growing chain of pointers to reach the data.

This is not correct, and it’s worth making a little fuss about the error since it’s the sort of thing that can easily become an urban legend that results in people rebuilding tables “for performance” when they don’t need to.

Oracle behaves quite intelligently with migrated rows. First, the migrated row has a pointer back to the original location and if the row has to migrate a second time the first place that Oracle checks for space is the original block, so the row might “de-migrate” itself; however, even if it can’t migrate back to the original block, it will still revisit the original block to change the pointer in that block to refer to the block it has moved on to – so the row is never more than one step away from its original location. As a quick demonstration, here’s some code to generate and manipulate some data:

(more…)

RAC Plans

Filed under: Execution plans,Hints,Oracle,RAC,Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 1:12 pm BST Feb 10,2014

Recently appeared on Mos – “Bug 18219084 : DIFFERENT EXECUTION PLAN ACROSS RAC INSTANCES”

Now, I’m not going to claim that the following applies to this particular case – but it’s perfectly reasonable to expect to see different plans for the same query on RAC, and it’s perfectly possible for the two different plans to have amazingly different performance characteristics; and in this particular case I can see an obvious reason why the two nodes could have different plans.

Here’s the query reported in the bug:

(more…)

February 6, 2014

12c fixed subquery

Filed under: 12c,Execution plans,Oracle,subqueries — Jonathan Lewis @ 2:25 pm BST Feb 6,2014

Here’s a simple little demonstration of an enhancement to the optimizer in 12c that may result in some interesting changes in execution plans as cardinality estimates change from “guesses” to accurate estimates.

(more…)

February 5, 2014

Minus

Filed under: Execution plans,Oracle,Troubleshooting,Tuning — Jonathan Lewis @ 5:42 pm BST Feb 5,2014

Here’s a little script to demonstrate an observation about a missed opportunity for avoiding work that appeared in my email this morning (that’s morning Denver time):

(more…)

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,985 other followers