Oracle Scratchpad

July 13, 2018

pushing predicates

Filed under: CBO,Execution plans,Hints,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 1:05 pm BST Jul 13,2018

I came across this odd limitation (maybe defect) with pushing predicates (join predicate push down) a few years ago that made a dramatic difference to a client query when fixed but managed to hide itself rather cunningly until you looked closely at what was going on. Searching my library for something completely different I’ve just rediscovered the model I built to demonstrate the issue so I’ve tested it against a couple of newer versions  of Oracle (including 18.1) and found that the anomaly still exists. It’s an interesting little detail about checking execution plans properly so I’ve written up the details. The critical feature of the problem is a union all view:


rem
rem     Script:         push_pred_limitation.sql
rem     Author:         Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:          Jan 2015
rem     Purpose:        
rem
rem     Last tested 
rem             19.3.0.0
rem             18.1.0.0        on LiveSQL
rem             12.2.0.1
rem             12.1.0.2
rem             11.2.0.4
rem



create table t1
as
select  * 
from    all_objects
where   rownum <= 10000 -- > comment to avoid wordpress format issue
;

create table t2
as
select  * 
from    all_objects
where   rownum <= 10000 -- > comment to avoid wordpress format issue
;


create table t3
as
select  * 
from    all_objects
where   rownum <= 10000 -- > comment to avoid wordpress format issue
;

prompt  ========================================================
prompt  object_type will not be pushed if it is not in the index
prompt  ========================================================

create index t2_id on t2(object_id);
-- create index t2_id_ot on t2(object_id, object_type);

create index t3_name_type on t3(object_name, object_type);

begin
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname          => null,
                tabname          =>'T1',
                method_opt       => 'for all columns size 1 for columns owner size 254'
        );

        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname          => null,
                tabname          =>'T2',
                method_opt       => 'for all columns size 1'
        );

        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname          => null,
                tabname          =>'T3',
                method_opt       => 'for all columns size 1'
        );
end;
/

create or replace view v1
as
select 
        /*+ qb_name(part1) */
        t2.object_id,
        t2.object_type  object_type_2,
        t3.object_type  object_type_3,
        t2.created      date_2,
        t3.created      date_3
from
        t2, t3
where
        t3.object_name = t2.object_name
union all
select 
        /*+ qb_name(part2) */
        t2.object_id,
        t2.object_type  object_type_2,
        t3.object_type  object_type_3,
        t2.last_ddl_time        date_2,
        t3.last_ddl_time        date_3
from
        t2, t3
where
        t3.object_name = t2.object_name
;

Two points to note so far: first, the view is basically joining the same two tables in the same way twice but selecting different columns. It’s a close model of what the client was doing but so much simpler that it wouldn’t be hard to find a different way of getting the same result: the client’s version would have been much far harder to rewrite. Secondly, I’ve listed two possible indexes for table t2 but commented one of them out. The indexing will make a difference that I’ll describe later.

So here’s the query with execution plan (from explain plan – but pulling the plan from memory gives the same result):


select
	/*+ qb_name(main) */
	t1.object_name, t1.object_type,
	v1.object_id, v1.date_2, v1.date_3
from
	t1,
	v1
where
	v1.object_id = t1.object_id
and	v1.object_type_2 = t1.object_type
and	v1.object_type_3 = t1.object_type
and	t1.owner = 'OUTLN'
;

Plan hash value: 4123301926

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                         |              |     7 |   588 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  NESTED LOOPS                            |              |     7 |   588 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL                      | T1           |     7 |   280 |    26   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |   VIEW                                   | V1           |     1 |    44 |     8   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   4 |    UNION ALL PUSHED PREDICATE            |              |       |       |            |          |
|   5 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   6 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   7 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  8 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID        |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  9 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  10 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  11 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  12 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  13 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID        |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  16 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter("T1"."OWNER"='OUTLN')
   3 - filter("V1"."OBJECT_TYPE_2"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
   8 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID")
   9 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
  14 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID")
  15 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")

The execution plan appears to be fine – we can see at operation 4 that the union all view has been access with the pushed predicate option and that the subsequent sub-plan has used index driven nested loop joins in both branches – until we look a little more closely and examine the Predicate section of the plan. What, exactly, has been pushed ?

Look at the predicate for operation 3: “V1″.”OBJECT_TYPE_2″=”T1″.”OBJECT_TYPE”. It’s a join predicate that hasn’t been pushed into the view. On the other hand the original, and similar, join predicate v1.object_type_3 = t1.object_type has been pushed into the view, appearing at operations 9 and 15. There is a difference, of course, the object_type_3 column appears as the second column of the index on table t3.

Two questions then: (a) will the object_type_2 predicate be pushed if we add it to the relevant index on table t2, (b) is there a way to get the predicate pushed without adding it to the index. The answer to both questions is yes. First the index – re-run the test but create the alternative index on t2 and the plan changes to:

Plan hash value: 497545587

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                         |              |     7 |   553 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  NESTED LOOPS                            |              |     7 |   553 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL                      | T1           |     7 |   280 |    26   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |   VIEW                                   | V1           |     1 |    39 |     8   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   4 |    UNION ALL PUSHED PREDICATE            |              |       |       |            |          |
|   5 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   6 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   7 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  8 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID_OT     |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  9 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  10 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  11 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  12 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  13 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID_OT     |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  16 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter("T1"."OWNER"='OUTLN')
   8 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID" AND "T2"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
   9 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
  14 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID" AND "T2"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
  15 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")

Notice how the predicate at operation 3 has disappeared, and the access predicate at operation 8 now includes the predicate “T2″.”OBJECT_TYPE”=”T1″.”OBJECT_TYPE”.

Alternatively, don’t mess about with the indexes – just tell Oracle to push the predicate. Normally I would just try /*+ push_pred(v1) */ as the hint to do this, but the Outline section of the original execution plan already included a push_pred() hint that looked like this: PUSH_PRED(@”MAIN” “V1″@”MAIN” 3 1), so I first copied exactly that into the SQL to see if it would make any difference. It did – I got the following plan (and, strangely, the hint in the outline changed to PUSH_PRED(@”MAIN” “V1″@”MAIN” 3 2 1) so this may be a case where the plan produced by a baseline will perform better than the plan that the produced the baseline!):

Plan hash value: 4123301926

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                                | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                         |              |     7 |   553 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  NESTED LOOPS                            |              |     7 |   553 |    82   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL                      | T1           |     7 |   280 |    26   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |   VIEW                                   | V1           |     1 |    39 |     8   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   4 |    UNION ALL PUSHED PREDICATE            |              |       |       |            |          |
|   5 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   6 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  7 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  8 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID        |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  9 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  10 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  11 |     NESTED LOOPS                         |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  12 |      NESTED LOOPS                        |              |     1 |    77 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 |       TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T2           |     1 |    41 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 |        INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T2_ID        |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 |       INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | T3_NAME_TYPE |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|  16 |      TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID         | T3           |     1 |    36 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter("T1"."OWNER"='TEST_USER')
   7 - filter("T2"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
   8 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID")
   9 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
  13 - filter("T2"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")
  14 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"="T1"."OBJECT_ID")
  15 - access("T3"."OBJECT_NAME"="T2"."OBJECT_NAME" AND "T3"."OBJECT_TYPE"="T1"."OBJECT_TYPE")

In this case we see that the critical late-joining predicate has disappeared from operation 3 and re-appeared as a filter predicate at operation 7 In many cases you may find that the change in predicate use makes little difference to the performance – in my example the variation in run time over several executions of each query was larger than the average run time of the query; nevertheless it’s worth noting that the delayed use of the predicate could have increased the number of probes into table t3 for both branches of the union all and resulted in redundant data passing up through several layers of the call stack before being eliminated … and “eliminate early” is one of the major commandments of optimisation.

You might notice that the Plan Hash Value for the hinted execution plan is the same as for the original execution plan: the hashing algorithm doesn’t take the predicates into account (just one of many points that Randolf Geist raised in a blog post several years ago). This is one of the little details that makes it easy to miss the little changes in a plan that can make a big difference in performance.

Summary

If you have SQL that joins simple tables to set based (union all, etc.) views and you see the pushed predicate option appearing take a little time to examine the predicate section of the execution plan to see if the optimizer is pushing all the join predicates that it should and, if it isn’t, test the effects of pushing more predicates.

In many cases adding the hint /*+ push_pred(your_view_name) */ at the top of the query may be sufficient to get the predicate pushing you need, but you may need to look at the outline section of the execution plan and add a series of more complicated push_pred() and no_push_pred() hints because the push_pred hint has evolved over time to deal with increasingly complicated transformations.

Update (Jan 2020)

The same pattern of behaviour appears in 19c. (19.3.0.0)

2 Comments »

  1. Jonathan,

    Thank you again for another great note. I am losing count of number of times I have faced issues with optimizer behaviour and you seem to have blogged about it.
    Have been working on a performance issue this week which matches with this note…now there is a small (??) matter of trying to come up with best possible solution but at least this article explains the theory.
    The issue I am facing involves layers of views upon views and in the topmost view definition, one of the views is joined to other views using multiple columns. The performance issue is mostly influenced by data skew and when I first started looking into it, the execution plan had VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE for this view and I almost misdiagnosed after looking into SQL Monitor reports. Today, I decided to dig deep and managed to get the output of execution statistics (using GATHER_PLAN_STATISTICS). That is when I noticed that only 2 out of 3 join predicates had been pushed into this view. I did try playing with adding PUSH_PRED hint (with predicates) from the outline and managed to push all 3 join predicates, which resulted in runtime dropping from over 8 minutes to about 2 minutes (which is still not fast enough but better than 8 minutes). Reading your note has given me hope that I might be able to come up with a solution that does not have to depend upon the extended usage of PUSH_PRED hint. Let’s see…

    Comment by Narendra — July 17, 2020 @ 8:56 pm BST Jul 17,2020 | Reply

    • Narendra,

      Thanks for the comment.
      Apologies that it’s taken so long to acknowledge it.

      Glad the note helped you bring the time down, and all the best with bringing it down even further.

      Regards
      Jonathan Lewis

      Comment by Jonathan Lewis — August 22, 2020 @ 3:12 pm BST Aug 22,2020 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Comments and related questions are welcome.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: