I’ve given examples in the past of how you can be suprised by Oracle when a mechanism that has “always worked” in the past suddenly just doesn’t work because some unexpected internal coding mechanism hits a boundary condition. One example I gave of this was rebuilding indexes online – where a limitation on the key size of index organized tables made it impossible to do an online rebuild of an index on a heap table because of an ORA-01450 (maximum key length) error that was raised against the (index-organized) journal table that Oracle creates internally to support the rebuild.
Slightly more recently the topic of the sys_op_map_nonnull() function came up in some comments about the ora_hash function – and I made a passing comment about the function appearing in materialized view refreshes and then never followed it up. Fortunately I got an email from Jared Still and Don Seiler a few days ago which contained a nice short demonstration of the problem so, with their permission, I’ve published it below.
A recent posting on the comp.databases.oracle.server newsgroup pointed me to a rather elderly Ask Tom question (originally posed in July 2004, last updated June 2011) where Tom produced an extraordinary observation. The response times for the following two queries are completely different (on Oracle 9.2 on his data set):
This one’s so odd I nearly posted it as a “Quiz Night” – but decided that it would be friendlier simply to demonstrate it. Here’s a simple script to create a couple of identical tables. It’s using my standard environment but, apart from fiddling with optimizer settings, I doubt if there’s any reason why you need to worry too much about getting the environment exactly right.
So you’ve decided you want to audit a particular table in your database, and think that Oracle’s built in audit command will do what you want. You discover two options that seem to be relevant:
audit all on t1 by access;
audit all on t1 by session;
To check the audit state of anything in your schema you can then run a simple query – with a few SQL*Plus formatting commands – to see something like the following:
Here’s a nice example on the OTN database forum of Dom Brooks looking at the evidence.
- The query is slow – what does the trace say.
- There’s “row source execution” line that says we get 71,288 rows before doing a hash unique drops it to 3,429 rows.
- There’s a statement (upper case, bind variables as :Bn) in the trace file that has been executed 71,288 times
- A very large fraction of the trace file time is in the secondary statement
- There’s a user-defined function call in the original select list, before a ‘select distinct’.
Conclusion: the code should probably do a “distinct” in an inline view before calling the function, reducing the number of calls to the function from 71,288 to 3,429.
Footnote: There may be other efficiency steps to consider – I’m always a little suspicious of a query that uses “distinct”: possibly it’s hiding an error in logic, possibly it should be rewritten with an existence subquery somewhere, but sometimes it really is the best strategy. There’s are some unusual statistics names coming from autotrace in the OP’s system – I wonder if he’s installed one of Tanel Poder’s special library hacks.
This is a post specially for Junping Zhang, who has been waiting patiently for a follow-up to my geek post about find the system-level setting for parameter use_stored_outlines. His question was: “Is it also possible to find the session-level setting ?”
The answer is yes – but it’s harder, version specific, requires a little preparation, and only allows you to see the setting for your own session.
I’ve been trying to find a way to post an executable for several weeks because I’ve been sent a simple viewer for 10053 trace files written by Hans-Peter Sloot of Atos Origin and Robert van der Ende. They wrote this viewer because trace files from event 10053 can be enormous, and scrolling back and fore through them to cross reference the interesting bits can be extremely tedious. Their “tree-viewer” allows you to see all the important headings and expand only the detail you’re interested in.
In a recent note showing how an index could become much larger than the underlying table because of the different ways that Oracle handles deletion from table and index blocks, I pointed out that Oracle would have to pick a moment to replace rows marked for deletion with a stub, or place-holder, showing where the row had been but reserving the rowid in case a process rolled back the delete. (This tied back to a note I had written showing that the row directory in a table block could become much larger than you might think possible.)
My closing question asked when Oracle would do this replacement, and how you could monitor it. This note is a partial answer to that question.
I posted a little holiday quiz – timed to appear just before midnight (GMT) on 24th December – that asked about the number of rows sorted and the memory used for queries like:
rownum <= 10
The number and variety of the responses was gratifying. It’s always interesting to see how many important little details appear as people start to tackle even fairly straight-forward questions like this.
Here’s an interesting post and test case from Gregory Guillou (WeDoStreams blog). It features an SQL statement that is re-optimised the second time you run it.
Since it’s running on 22.214.171.124 your first thought is likely to be “SQL Plan Management”, or “Adaptive Cursor Sharing” – except the first feature wasn’t enabled, and the statement doesn’t include any bind variables.
Gregory emailed me about this one, and it was the thing that finally persuaded me to tear down a laptop and install 64-bit OEL with 11.2 – and I ran his test case and got the same results. (If you build his sample schema, you’ll need about 1GB of free space).
When I wrote Practical Oracle 8i, version 8.1.5 was the most recent version of Oracle but version 8.1.6 came out just before I finished writing – and the only thing in 8.1.6 I thought important enough to add to the book was a section on Analytic Functions because they were the best new coding feature in the product.
Since then I’ve always warned people to be a little careful about how they use analytic functions because of the amount of sorting they can introduce. My suggestion has always been to crunch “large” volumes of data down to “small” volumes of data before applying any analytic functions to add “intelligence” to the intermediate result.
Here’s a mechanism for examining indexes in some detail if you think that something odd may be going on inside them. It’s a feature that I first decribed in Practical Oracle 8i, although the book doesn’t mention a problem with it that I subsequently discovered that means I always test it carefully on a small index before I use it on a large one. Here’s a demonstration – cut from an SQL*Plus session on 10.2.0.3:
I was planning to supply the answers to Index Quiz 2 as a comment – but there’s a lot of block dumps involved, and it’s easier to do that in postings.
Question 1: I’ve created a table and index with initrans 4, then inserted one row into the table. How many ITL (interested transaction list – see glossary) entries will there be in the first block of the index when you dump it.
Answer 1: The table block will show 4 entries in the ITL, obeying your setting for initrans, but the index block will show only two entries – unless you’re using Oracle 8i or earlier (Basically indexes tend to ignore the setting for initrans except when you rebuild an index, or create it on existing data.):
Here’s a simple script that I created a short time ago while investigating a memory problem on a client site. The purpose of writing the script was, as always, to strip the client’s code back to a bare minimum in an attempt to work out the root cause of a problem. (Warning: if you want to run this script, your Oracle shadow process will grab about 1GB of PGA RAM )
Today’s little quiz – just for fun, but prompted by a few comments in this posting on OTN: (more…)