Oracle Scratchpad

January 27, 2016

Add primary key.

Filed under: Indexing,Oracle,Troubleshooting,Tuning — Jonathan Lewis @ 9:07 am GMT Jan 27,2016

I thought I had written this note a few years ago, on OTN or Oracle-L if not on my blog, but I can’t find any sign of it so I’ve decided it’s time to write it (again) – starting as a question about the following code:


rem
rem     Script: pk_overhead.sql
rem     Author: J.P.Lewis
rem     Dated:  Feb 2012
rem

create table t1
as
with generator as (
        select  rownum  id
        from            dual
        connect by
                        rownum <= 1000
)
select
        rownum                                  id,
        trunc((rownum-1)/50)                    clustered,
        mod(rownum,20000)                       scattered,
        lpad(rownum,10)                         vc_small,
        rpad('x',100,'x')                       vc_padding
from
        generator       g1,
        generator       g2
;

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

alter system flush buffer_cache;

alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key(id, scattered);

I’ve generated a table with 1,000,000 rows, including a column that’s guaranteed to be unique; then I’ve added a (two-column) primary key constraint to that table.

Because of the guaranteed unique column the call to add constraint will succeed. Because Oracle will automatically create a unique index to support that constraint it will have to do a tablescan of the table. So here’s the question: HOW MANY TIMES will it tablescan that table (and how many rows will it scan) ?

Space for thought …

The answer is three tablescans, 3 million rows.

Oracle will scan the table to check the validity of adding a NOT NULL definition and constraint for the id column, repeat the scan to do the same for the scattered column, then one final scan to accumulate the key data and rowids to sort and create the index.

Knowing this, you may be able to find ways to modify bulk data loading operations to minimise overheads.

The most recent version I’ve tested this on is 12.1.0.2.

See also: https://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/add-constraint/

Update – May 2016

The extra tablescans occur even if you have pre-existing check constraints (not declarations) on the columns to ensure that they are not null (i.e. things like: “alter table t1 add constraint t1_nn_id check (id is not null)”).

6 Comments »

  1. […] the key column (or column set) is not null [update Jan 2016: couldn’t find it, so finally got around to writing it (again)]– which means that adding a primary key may also result in a tablescan for every […]

    Pingback by Add Constraint | Oracle Scratchpad — January 27, 2016 @ 9:15 am GMT Jan 27,2016 | Reply

  2. I think I already hit the same kind of issue, and I raised an ER to Oracle for this: ER – add constraint executing one full table scan per PK column. At that time we had the Unique index in place on a table, but all columns were declared NULL in the table definition. The create constraint USING INDEX was scanning 7 times a 47 Gb table, which took some time.

    Response from Oracle Support was Bug 16781054 opened, and finally closed as “Not a Bug” but finally an ER was created on their side:
    Explain why this is not a bug:
    This is expected behavior and not a Bug as it reproduces on all version through 12.2 Beta(MAIN). A new enhancement request has been filed for this in ER Bug 20505359.

    I’ve quickly tested your code and traced the ADD CONSTRAINT but can only see one single full table scan in the tracefile. I’ve tested this on a 11.2.0.4.

    Comment by sfromholtz — January 27, 2016 @ 9:43 am GMT Jan 27,2016 | Reply

    • sfromholz,

      Thanks for the note.

      The trace file can be a little deceptive and, at first sight, appear to be inconsistent with the session stats; how were you checking ?

      When I’ve cranked the sizes up to exceed the size of the buffer cache, and played around with the index definition (varying number of columns) the tkprof file shows the “add constraint” statement doing one tablescan less than expected (and that’s derived from the disk reads and buffer gets figures), but then there’s one more tablescan that gets recorded under a recursive “CREATE UNIQUE INDEX” statement.

      (I used the session stats to tell me about the number of tablescans and rows and blocks scanned as well as buffer gets and disk reads for my little test, along with the v$buffer_pool_statistics as a source to cross-check the buffer gets and disk reads).

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — January 27, 2016 @ 10:26 am GMT Jan 27,2016 | Reply

      • True, I’ve done the test with a 4,000,000 rows T2 table (by setting 2000 instead of 1000 in the generator), and I have a 74203 blocks T2 table. Session stats show:

        consistent gets 222,638
        session logical reads 237,336
        table scan rows gotten 12,016,695

        Which is 3 times the T2 table. Tracefile only shows a single full table scan and 74415 blocks read, inconsistent with session stats.

        Comment by sfromholtz — January 27, 2016 @ 1:02 pm GMT Jan 27,2016 | Reply

    • So it must not be bug, as it has always worked that way.
      Their logic is unassailable.

      Comment by jkstill — January 27, 2016 @ 2:52 pm GMT Jan 27,2016 | Reply

      • As someone from Oracle support once (ca. 7.2) said to me: “The specification doesn’t say that it shouldn’t do it that way, so it’s not a bug” – I can understand that. Oracle never promises to expose mechanisms, nor does it guarantee the immutability of existing mechanisms.

        Comment by Jonathan Lewis — January 27, 2016 @ 3:48 pm GMT Jan 27,2016 | 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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Blog at WordPress.com.