Here’s an interesting question from the OTN database forum:
“If I delete 90% of the rows from a table which has a few indexes, without rebuildling or coalescing indexes afterwards, will this improve the performance of index range scans ?”
The thing that makes it interesting is the scope it gives you for imagining reasons why the performance won’t change, or might get better, or could get worse. So how about it – can you think of an argument for each of the three possibilities ?
A little while ago I published a note explaining how it was possible to find queries which ran faster if you manually de-coupled the index and table accesses. Here’s a further example that came up in discussion on a client site recently. The query looks something like this (at least in concept, although it was a little more complex, with some messy bits around the edges):
Following on from yesterday’s post on consistent reads, I thought I’d make the point that the way you work can make an enormous difference to the amount of work you do. Here’s a silly little demo (in 10.2.0.3):
Here’s a quick demo to make a point about consistent reads (prompted by a question on the Oracle-L mailing list):
One of the problems of building models of Oracle activity is that it’s easy to build the wrong model. One of the commonest issues appears with repetitive actions – how do you write code that repeats a simple action many times in a row. It’s often enough to write a simple pl/sql loop but there are cases where a pl/sql loop behaves very differently from a long list of individual SQL statements – which is why I’ve occasionally used a very simple-minded approach to avoid that particular trap.
Here’s a note I’ve been meaning to research and write up for more than 18 months – ever since Dion Cho pinged a note I’d written about the effects of partitioning because of a comment it made about the “2% small table threshold”.
It has long been an item of common knowledge that Oracle has a “small table threshold” that allows for special treatment of data segments that are smaller than two percent of the size of the buffer cache, viz:
A couple of days ago I found several referrals coming in from a question about indexing on the Russian Oracle Forum. Reading the thread I found a pointer to a comment I’d written for the Oracle-L list server a couple of years ago about Advanced Queueing and why you might find that it was necessary to rebuild the IOTs (index organized tables) that support AQ.
The queue tables are, of course, a perfect example of what I call the “FIFO” index so it’s not a surprise that they might need special consideration. Rather than rewrite the whole note I’ll just link to it from here. (One of the notes in the rest of the Oracle-L thread also points to MOS document 271855.1 which describes the whys and hows of rebuilding AQ tables.)
Apart from the fact that the “Rows” figure for the FILTER operation at line 6 is blank, what’s the obvious error in this extract from an execution plan:
In the previous note on local indexes I raised a couple of questions about the problems of different partitions holding different volumes of data, and supplied a script to build some sample data that produced the following values for blevel across the partitions of a list-partitioned table.
I recently came across a tidy solution to a common problem – how to minimise code maintenance in a procedure while maximising flexibility of the procedure. The task was fairly simple – create a ref cursor for a calling program to return data that (a) followed complex selection rules and (b) allowed the user to specify numerous types of input.
The principle was simple – the final ref cursor was driven by a list of (say) order ids – and the details to be returned about those orders required some fairly complex SQL to execute. To separate the complexity of constructing the list of columns from the complexity of identifying the required rows the developers had split the procedure into two stages. First, select the list of relevant order ids using one of several possible statements – the appropriate statement being derived from analysis of the inputs to the procedure; secondly open a ref cursor using that list of order ids. In this way if a new set of rules for selection appeared the only new code needed was a new query to select the ids – the main body of code didn’t need to be modified and re-optimised.
In an article that I wrote about the /*+ driving_site */ hint a few months ago I pointed out that the hint was not supposed to work with “create table as select” (CTAS) and “insert as select”. One of the people commenting on the note mentioned pipelined function as a workaround to this limitation – and I’ve finally got around to writing a note about the method.
The idea is simple. If you can write a distributed select statement that takes advantage of the /*+ driving_site */ hint to work efficiently, you can wrap the statement in a pl/sql cursor loop and stick that loop into a pipelined function to maximise the efficiency of create or insert as select. Here’s some sample code (tested on 184.108.40.206) to demonstrate the principle:
Here’s a hidden threat in the optimizer strategy that may cause performance problems if you’re trying to operate a series of batch updates (or batch deletes).
In the past I’ve pointed out that a predicate like “rownum <= N" generally makes the optimizer use “first_rows(N)” optimisation methods – known in the code as first_k_rows optimisation.
This isn’t true for updates and deletes, as the following simple example indicates:
There’s a thread on OTN that talks about a particular deletion job taking increasing amounts of time each time it is run.
It looks like an example where some thought needs to go into index maintenance and I’ve contributed a few comments to the thread – so this is a lazy link so that I don’t have to repeat myself on the blog.
From time to time someone will post a question about query performance on the OTN database forum asking why one form of a query returns data almost immediately while another form of the query takes minutes to return the data.
Obviously there are all sorts of reasons – the optimizer is not perfect, and different transformations may take place that really do result in a huge differences in work done by two queries which return the same result set – but a very simple reason that can easily be overlooked is the front-end tool being used to run the query.
I was on a customer site recently where I needed to add a NOT NULL constraint to a table of 200 million rows – without taking any downtime. It’s not difficult (provided you are happy with a check constraint rather than a column definition.)
alter table t1
add constraint t1_ck_colX_nn check (colX is not null)
The first step creates the constraint and enables it – but doesn’t validate it. This means that future data (and changes) will obey the constraint, but there may be illegal data already in the table that will not be checked. You will have an interruption to service doing this, as your session will wait to lock the table in share mode (mode 4) to add the constraint – so will be blocked by current update transactions, and will block new update transactions. In a typical OLTP system this should result in just a brief pause.