Oracle Scratchpad

December 8, 2014

Cardinality Change

Filed under: CBO,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 9:35 pm BST Dec 8,2014

Here’s an entertaining little change across versions of Oracle, brought to my attention by Tony Hasler during UKOUG Tech 14. It’s a join cardinality estimate, so here are a couple of tables to demonstrate the issue – the only columns needed are the alpha_06 columns, but I reused some code from other demonstrations to create my test case, so there are lots of irrelevant columns in the create table script:

create table t1 nologging as
with generator as (
        select rownum id
        from dual
        connect by rownum <= 1000
        rownum                                          id,
        mod(rownum-1,200)                               mod_200,
        trunc(dbms_random.value(0,300))                 rand_300,
        mod(rownum-1,10000)                             mod_10000,
        trunc(sysdate) +
                trunc(dbms_random.value(0,1000))        date_1000,
        dbms_random.string('l',6)                       alpha_06,
        dbms_random.string('l',20)                      alpha_20
        rownum <= 1e6

execute dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'t1',method_opt=>'for all columns size 1')

create table t2 nologging as select * from t1;
execute dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'t2',method_opt=>'for all columns size 1')

I’m going to join t1 to t2 with a predicate based on the alpha_06 columns – using a LIKE predicate. Before I do so I’ll point out that there are are 1,000,000 rows in the table, and (checking the column stats) 985,920 distinct values for alpha_06. Here’s my query, with the execution plan I got from

        t1, t2
        t2.alpha_06 like t1.alpha_06

| Id  | Operation           | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |      |     1 |    14 |  1122M  (6)|999:59:59 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE     |      |     1 |    14 |            |          |
|   2 |   NESTED LOOPS      |      |    50G|   651G|  1122M  (6)|999:59:59 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |  1000K|  6835K|  1123   (6)| 00:00:06 |
|*  4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T2   | 50000 |   341K|  1122   (6)| 00:00:06 |

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   4 - filter("T2"."ALPHA_06" LIKE "T1"."ALPHA_06")

The 50,000 cardinality estimate for t2 looks like the standard 5% guess for “column >= {unknown value}”, following which the join cardinality of 50G is the same 5% guess applied to the Cartesian join between t1 and t2 (1M * 1M * 0.05). It’s not a good estimate in my case because the right answer happens to be close to 1M rows, specifically 1,003,176. So let’s upgrade to and see what we get instead:

| Id  | Operation           | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |      |     1 |    14 |  1050M  (6)|999:59:59 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE     |      |     1 |    14 |            |          |
|   2 |   NESTED LOOPS      |      |  2014K|    26M|  1050M  (6)|999:59:59 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |  1000K|  6835K|  1051   (6)| 00:00:06 |
|*  4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T2   |     2 |    14 |  1050   (6)| 00:00:06 |

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   4 - filter("T2"."ALPHA_06" LIKE "T1"."ALPHA_06")

The estimate has dropped from 50 Billion rows down to 2 Million – a factor of about 25,000: possibly an indicator that the algorithm has changed, and that a few people might find execution plans changing as they upgrade to a newer version of Oracle. The change occurred at as revealed by fix control 9303766 which has the description: “use 1/NDV+1/NROWS for col1 LIKE col2 selectivities”.

Just as a quick check on the arithmetic: there are 1 million rows in table t2, with (as noted above) 985,920 distinct values in the column, so the selectivity should be: 1/1000000 + 1/985920 = 2.014281 * e-6. Multiply the selectivity by 1e6 and you get 2, the cardinality estimate for t2; multiply the selectivity by 1M*1M (the Cartesian join) and you get 2,014,281, the cardinality estimate of the join. QED.

There are workarounds, of course. One would be to reverse out the fix control, either as an initialisation parameter or in a session logon trigger, another might be to modify the SQL – I think the following would be equivalent:

from    t1, t2
        t2.alpha_06 like substr(t1.alpha_06,1,length(t1.alpha_06))||'%'
and     t1.alpha_06 is not null
and     t2.alpha_06 is not null

This changes the critical predicate from the form “col1 like col2” to “col1 like {unknown value from function}” i.e. back to a case where the optimizer uses the 5% guess, and the cardinality estimates go back the original values.


  1. Hello Jonathan,

    interesting read. I think having a intermediate of 50G rows should be big enough in order to make the CBO consider another plan, if possible :)

    Given the column definition (dbms_random.string(‘l’,6)) I think an equivalent rewrite would be just “t2.alpha_06 = t1.alpha_06”

    “substr(t1.alpha_06,1,length(t1.alpha_06))||’%'” is equal to t1.alpha_06)||’%’
    Did you mean:

    Anyway I don’t think that introducing a “%” will result in an equivalent result in general (or the “%” is missing in the very first join).

    Best regards,

    Comment by Salek Talangi — December 9, 2014 @ 10:45 am BST Dec 9,2014 | Reply

    • Salek,

      The particular numbers are fairly irrelevant – the point is that the calculation changes across version. In fact, “considering another plan” is the problem that Tony Hasler had; his data sets weren’t producing such enormous numbers, of course, but the scale of the change was large enough that his execution plans went from good to bad.

      The odd formulation was deliberate – you know that the expression I’ve used (ignoring the %) is the same as t1.alpha_06, but the optimizer doesn’t. (Once upon a time the optimizer didn’t know that sysdate + 0 was the same as sysdate, this is the same type of stategy).

      The ‘%’ is redundant (at present) but I don’ think that it would change the result.

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — December 11, 2014 @ 8:58 am BST Dec 11,2014 | Reply

  2. Jonathan,

    I know this is a little late but patch 20206961 is available for (and probably as well). This is an OOB patch, which means you will need to request a build for a specific platform and release version. This patch just adds a fix control (curiously numbered 9227576) that allows you to revert to the old behaviour.

    I must express my gratitude to Maria Colgan for getting me this patch very quickly but I have been unable to guess what the motivation for the change was in the first place.

    Comment by tonyhasler — May 7, 2015 @ 5:56 pm BST May 7,2015 | Reply

    • Tony,

      Your comment is about the behaviour change in behaviour relating your deletion of the low and high values from object stats, not about the change described in this blog note which already has a fix-control allowing it to be reversed.

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — May 7, 2015 @ 7:50 pm BST May 7,2015 | Reply

      • OOPS! Apologies. Jonathan, please feel free to delete my comment.

        Comment by tonyhasler — May 8, 2015 @ 1:35 pm BST May 8,2015 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Powered by