Oracle Scratchpad

November 15, 2018

num_index_keys

Filed under: 12c,Bugs,CBO,Execution plans,Hints,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 1:13 pm GMT Nov 15,2018

The title is the name of an Oracle hint that came into existence in Oracle 10.2.0.3 and made an appearance recently in a question on the rarely used “My Oracle Support” Community forum (you’ll need a MOS account to be able to read the original). I wouldn’t have found it but the author also emailed me the link asking if I could take a look at it.  (If you want to ask me for help – without paying me, that is – then posting a public question in the Oracle (ODC) General Database or SQL forums and emailing me a private link is the strategy most likely to get an answer, by the way.)

The question was about a very simple query using a straightforward index – with a quirky change of plan after upgrading from 10.2.0.3 to 12.2.0.1. Setting the optimizer_features_enable to ‘10.2.0.3’ in the 12.2.0.1 system re-introduced the 10g execution plan. Here’s the query:


SELECT t1.*
   FROM   DW1.t1
  WHERE   t1.C1 = '0001' 
    AND   t1.C2 IN ('P', 'F', 'C')
    AND   t1.C3 IN (
                    '18110034450001',
                    '18110034450101',
                    '18110034450201',
                    '18110034450301',
                    '18110034450401',
                    '18110034450501'
          );
 

Information supplied: t1 holds about 500 million rows at roughly 20 rows per block, the primary key index is (c1, c2, c3, c4), there are just a few values for each of c1, c2 and c4, while c3 is “nearly unique” (which, for clarity, was expanded to “the number of distinct values of c3 is virtually the same as the number of rows in the table”).

At the moment we don’t have any information about histograms and we don’t known whether or not “nearly unique” might still allow a few values of c3 to have a large number of duplicates, so that’s something we might want to follow up on later.

Here are the execution plans – the fast one (from 10g) first, then the slow (12c) plan – and you should look carefully at the predicate section of the two plans:


10g (pulled from memory with rowsource execution statistics enabled)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                    | Name             | Starts | E-Rows | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers | Reads  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |                  |      1 |        |      6 |00:00:00.01 |      58 |      5 |
|   1 |  INLIST ITERATOR             |                  |      1 |        |      6 |00:00:00.01 |      58 |      5 |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1               |     18 |      5 |      6 |00:00:00.01 |      58 |      5 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN          | PK_T1            |     18 |      5 |      6 |00:00:00.01 |      52 |      4 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - access("T1"."C1"='0001' AND (("T1"."C2"='C' OR "T1"."C2"='F' OR
              "T1"."C2"='P')) AND (("C3"='18110034450001' OR "C3"='18110034450101' OR
              "C3"='18110034450201' OR "C3"='18110034450301' OR "C3"='18110034450401' OR
              "C3"='18110034450501')))

 

12c (from explain plan)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                            | Name             | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                     |                  |     1 |   359 |     7   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  INLIST ITERATOR                     |                  |       |       |            |          |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T1               |     1 |   359 |     7   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | PK_T1            |     1 |       |     6   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - access("T1"."C1"='0001' AND ("T1"."C2"='C' OR "T1"."C2"='F' OR
              "T1"."C2"='P'))
       filter("C3"='18110034450001' OR "C3"='18110034450101' OR
              "C3"='18110034450201' OR "C3"='18110034450301' OR
              "C3"='18110034450401' OR "C3"='18110034450501')
  

When comparing plans it’s better, of course, to present the same sources from the two systems, it’s not entirely helpful to have the generated plan from explain plan in one version and a run-time plan with stats in the other – given the choice I’d like to see the run-time from both. Despite this, I felt fairly confident that the prediction would match the run-time for 12c and that I could at least guess the “starts” figure for 12c.

The important thing to notice is the way that the access predicate in 10g has split into an access predicate followed by a filter predicate in 12c. So 12c is going to iterate three times (once for each of the values  ‘C’, ‘F’, ‘P’) and then walk a potentially huge linked list of index leaf blocks looking for 6 values of c3, while 10g is going to probe the index 18 times (3 combinations of c2 x six combinations of c3) to find “nearly unique” rows which means probably one leaf block per probe.

The 12c plan was taking minutes to run, the 10g plan was taking less than a second. The difference in execution time was probably the effect of the 12c plan ranging through (literally) thousands of index leaf blocks.

There are many bugs and anomalies relating to in-list iteration and index range scans and cardinality calculations – here’s a quick sample of v$system_fix_control in 12.2.0.1:


select optimizer_feature_enable ofe, sql_feature, bugno, description
from v$system_fix_control
where
	optimizer_feature_enable between '10.2.0.4' and '12.2.0.1'
and	(   sql_feature like '%CBO%'
	 or sql_feature like '%CARDINALITY%'
	)
and	(    lower(description) like '%list%'
	 or  lower(description) like '%iterat%'
	 or  lower(description) like '%multi%col%'
	)
order by optimizer_feature_enable, sql_feature, bugno
;

OFE        SQL_FEATURE                      BUGNO DESCRIPTION
---------- --------------------------- ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
10.2.0.4   QKSFM_CBO_5259048              5259048 undo unused inlist
           QKSFM_CBO_5634346              5634346 Relax equality operator restrictions for multicolumn inlists

10.2.0.5   QKSFM_CBO_7148689              7148689 Allow fix of bug 2218788 for in-list predicates

11.1.0.6   QKSFM_CBO_5139520              5139520 kkoDMcos: For PWJ on list dimension, use part/subpart bits

11.2.0.1   QKSFM_CBO_6818410              6818410 eliminate redundant inlist predicates

11.2.0.2   QKSFM_CBO_9069046              9069046 amend histogram column tracking for multicolumn stats

11.2.0.3   QKSFM_CARDINALITY_11876260    11876260 use index filter inlists with extended statistics
           QKSFM_CBO_10134677            10134677 No selectivity for transitive inlist predicate from equijoin
           QKSFM_CBO_11834739            11834739 adjust NDV for list partition key column after pruning
           QKSFM_CBO_11853331            11853331 amend index cost compare with inlists as filters
           QKSFM_CBO_12591120            12591120 check inlist out-of-range values with extended statistics

11.2.0.4   QKSFM_CARDINALITY_12828479    12828479 use dynamic sampling cardinality for multi-column join key check
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_12864791    12864791 adjust for NULLs once for multiple inequalities on nullable colu
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_13362020    13362020 fix selectivity for skip scan filter with multi column stats
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_14723910    14723910 limit multi column group selectivity due to NDV of inlist column
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_6873091      6873091 trim histograms based on in-list predicates
           QKSFM_CBO_13850256            13850256 correct estimates for transitive inlist predicate with equijoin

12.2.0.1   QKSFM_CARDINALITY_19847091    19847091 selectivity caching for inlists
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_22533539    22533539 multi-column join sanity checks for table functions
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_23019286    23019286 Fix cdn estimation with multi column stats on fixed data types
           QKSFM_CARDINALITY_23102649    23102649 correction to inlist element counting with constant expressions
           QKSFM_CBO_17973658            17973658 allow partition pruning due to multi-inlist iterator
           QKSFM_CBO_21057343            21057343 order predicate list
           QKSFM_CBO_22272439            22272439 correction to inlist element counting with bind variables

There are also a number of system parameters relating to inlists that are new (or have changed values) in 12.2.0.1 when compared with 10.2.0.3 – but I’m not going to go into those right now.

I was sufficiently curious about this anomaly that I emailed the OP to say I would be happy to take a look at the 10053 trace files for the query – the files probably weren’t going to be very large given that it was only a single table query – but in the end it turned out that I solved the problem before he’d had time to email them. (Warning – don’t email me a 10053 file on spec; if I want one I’ll ask for it.)

Based on the description I created an initial model of the problem – it took about 10 minutes to code:


rem     Tested on 12.2.0.1, 18.3.0.1

drop table t1 purge;

create table t1 (
	c1 varchar2(4) not null,
	c2 varchar2(1) not null,
	c3 varchar2(15) not null,
	c4 varchar2(4)  not null,
	v1 varchar2(250)
)
;

insert into t1
with g as (
	select rownum id 
	from dual
	connect by level <= 1e4 -- > hint to avoid wordpress format issue
)
select
	'0001',
	chr(65 + mod(rownum,11)),
	'18110034'||lpad(1+100*rownum,7,'0'),
	lpad(mod(rownum,9),4,'0'),
	rpad('x',250,'x')
from
	g,g
where
        rownum <= 1e5 -- > hint to avoid wordpress format issue
;


create unique index t1_i1 on t1(c1, c2, c3, c4);

begin
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                null,
                't1',
                method_opt => 'for all columns size 1'
        );
end;
/

alter session set statistics_level = all;
set serveroutput off

prompt	==========================
prompt	Default optimizer features
prompt	==========================

select
        /*+ optimizer_features_enable('12.2.0.1') */
	t1.*
FROM	t1
WHERE
	t1.c1 = '0001' 
AND	t1.c2 in ('H', 'F', 'C')
AND	t1.c3 in (
		'18110034450001',
		'18110034450101',
		'18110034450201',
		'18110034450301',
		'18110034450401',
		'18110034450501'
	)
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'cost allstats last'));

select 
        /*+ optimizer_features_enable('10.2.0.3') */
	t1.*
FROM	t1
WHERE
	t1.c1 = '0001' 
AND	t1.c2 in ('H', 'F', 'C')
AND	t1.c3 in (
		'18110034450001',
		'18110034450101',
		'18110034450201',
		'18110034450301',
		'18110034450401',
		'18110034450501'
	)
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'cost allstats last'));

alter session set statistics_level = all;
set serveroutput off

The two queries produced the same plan – regardless of the setting for optimizer_features_enable – it was the plan originally used by the OP’s 10g setting:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                    | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |       |      1 |        |    20 (100)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |      35 |
|   1 |  INLIST ITERATOR             |       |      1 |        |            |      0 |00:00:00.01 |      35 |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1    |     18 |      2 |    20   (0)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |      35 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_I1 |     18 |      2 |    19   (0)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |      35 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - access("T1"."C1"='0001' AND (("T1"."C2"='C' OR "T1"."C2"='F' OR "T1"."C2"='H')) AND
              (("T1"."C3"='18110034450001' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450101' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450201' OR
              "T1"."C3"='18110034450301' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450401' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450501')))

There was one important difference between the 10g and the 12c plans – in 10g the cost of the table access (hence the cost of the total query) was 20; in 12c it jumped to 28 – maybe there’s a change in the arithmetic for costing the iterator, and maybe that’s sufficient to cause a problem.

Before going further it’s worth checking what the costs would look like (and, indeed, if the plan is possible in both versions) if we force Oracle into the “bad” plan. That’s where we finally get to the hint in the title of this piece. If I add the hint /*+ num_index_keys(t1 t1_i1 2) */ what’s going to happen ? (Technically I’ve included a hint to use the index, and specified the query block name to make sure Oracle doesn’t decide to switch to a tablescan):


select
        /*+
            optimizer_features_enable('12.2.0.1')
            index_rs_asc(@sel$1 t1@sel$1 (t1.c1 t1.c2 t1.c3 t1.c4))
            num_index_keys(@sel$1 t1@sel$1 t1_i1 2)
        */
        t1.*
FROM        t1
WHERE
        t1.c1 = '0001'
AND        t1.c2 in ('H', 'F', 'C')
AND        t1.c3 in (
                '18110034450001',
                '18110034450101',
                '18110034450201',
                '18110034450301',
                '18110034450401',
                '18110034450501'
        )
;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                            | Name  | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers | Reads  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                     |       |      1 |        |   150 (100)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |     154 |      1 |
|   1 |  INLIST ITERATOR                     |       |      1 |        |            |      0 |00:00:00.01 |     154 |      1 |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T1    |      3 |     18 |   150   (2)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |     154 |      1 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T1_I1 |      3 |     18 |   142   (3)|      0 |00:00:00.01 |     154 |      1 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - access("T1"."C1"='0001' AND (("T1"."C2"='C' OR "T1"."C2"='F' OR "T1"."C2"='H')))
       filter(("T1"."C3"='18110034450001' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450101' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450201' OR
              "T1"."C3"='18110034450301' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450401' OR "T1"."C3"='18110034450501'))

This was the plan from 12.2.0.1 – and again the plan for 10.2.0.3 was identical except for costs which became 140 for the index range scan and 141 for the table access. At first sight it looks like 10g may be using the total selectivity of the entire query as the scaling factor for the index clustering_factor to find the table cost while 12c uses the cost of accessing the table for one iteration (rounding up) before multiplying by the number of iterations.

Having observed this detail I thought I’d do a quick test of what happened by default if I requested 145 distinct values of c3. Both versions defaulted to the access/filter path rather than the pure access path – but again there was a difference in costs. The 10g index cost was 140 with a table access cost of 158, while 12c had an index cost of 179 and a table cost of 372. So both versions switch plans at some point – do they switch at the same point ? Reader, I could not resist temptation, so I ran a test loop. With my data set the 12c version switched paths at 61 values in the in-list and 10g switched at 53 values –

Conclusion: there’s been a change in the selectivity calculations for the use of in-list iterators, which leads to a change in costs, which can lead to a change in plans; the OP was just unlucky with his data set and stats. Possibly there’s something about his data or stats that makes the switch appear with a much smaller in-list than mine.

Footnote:

When I responded to the thread on MOSC with the suggestion that the problem was in part due to statistics and might be affected by out of date stats (or a histogram on the (low-frequency) c2 column) the OP noted that stats hadn’t been gathered since some time in August – and found that the 12c path changed to the efficient (10g) one after re-gathering stats on the table.

 

October 28, 2018

Upgrades – again

Filed under: 12c,Histograms,Oracle,Statistics,Upgrades — Jonathan Lewis @ 12:39 pm GMT Oct 28,2018

I’ve got a data set which I’ve recreated in 11.2.0.4 and 12.2.0.1.

I’ve generated stats on the data set, and the stats are identical.

I don’t have any indexes or extended stats, or SQL Plan directives or SQL Plan Profiles, or SQL Plan Baselines, or SQL Patches to worry about.

I’m joining two tables, and the join column on one table has a frequency histogram while the join column on the other table has a height-balanced histogram.  The histograms were created with estimate_percent => 100%. (which explains why I’ve got a height-balanced histogram in 12c rather than a hybrid histogram.)

Here are the two execution plans, 11.2.0.4 first, pulled from memory by dbms_xplan.display_cursor():


SQL_ID  f8wj7karu0hhs, child number 0
-------------------------------------
select         count(*) from         t1, t2 where         t1.j1 = t2.j2

Plan hash value: 906334482

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation           | Name | Starts | E-Rows | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |      |      1 |        |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |       |       |          |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE     |      |      1 |      1 |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |       |       |          |
|*  2 |   HASH JOIN         |      |      1 |   1855 |   1327 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |  2440K|  2440K| 1357K (0)|
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |      1 |    100 |    100 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
|   4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T2   |      1 |    800 |    800 |00:00:00.01 |       6 |       |       |          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - access("T1"."J1"="T2"."J2")



SQL_ID	f8wj7karu0hhs, child number 0
-------------------------------------
select	       count(*) from	     t1, t2 where	  t1.j1 = t2.j2

Plan hash value: 906334482

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation	    | Name | Starts | E-Rows | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |	OMem |	1Mem | Used-Mem |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT    |	   |	  1 |	     |	    1 |00:00:00.01 |	  41 |	     |	     |		|
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE     |	   |	  1 |	   1 |	    1 |00:00:00.01 |	  41 |	     |	     |		|
|*  2 |   HASH JOIN	    |	   |	  1 |	1893 |	 1327 |00:00:00.01 |	  41 |	2545K|	2545K| 1367K (0)|
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |	  1 |	 100 |	  100 |00:00:00.01 |	   7 |	     |	     |		|
|   4 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL| T2   |	  1 |	 800 |	  800 |00:00:00.01 |	   7 |	     |	     |		|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - access("T1"."J1"="T2"."J2")

The key point is the the difference between the two cardinality estimates. Why has that appeared, and what might the optimizer do in a more complex plan when a cardinality estimates changes?

The difference is only 2% but that was on a couple of data sets I just happened to run up to check something completely different, I wasn’t trying to break something, so who know how big the variation can get. Of course if you’re switching from 11g to 12c then Oracle (Corp.) expects you to be using auto_sample_size anyway so you shouldn’t be producing height-balanced histograms.

So does this difference really matter? Maybe not, but if you (like many sites I’ve seen) are still using fixed percentage sample sizes and are generating histograms it’s another reason (on top of the usual instability effects of height-balanced and hybrid histograms) why you might see plans change as you upgrade from 11g to 12c.

Footnote

It looks as if the difference comes mostly from a coding error in 11g that has been fixed in 12c – I couldn’t find an official bug or fix_control that matched, though. More on that later in the week.

Update

Chinar Aliyev has pointed out that there are three fix-controls that may be associated with this (and other ) changes. From v$system_fix_control these are:

14033181 1 QKSFM_CARDINALITY_14033181   correct ndv for non-popular values in join cardinality comp.         (12.1.0.1)
19230097 1 QKSFM_CARDINALITY_19230097   correct join card when popular value compared to non popular         (12.2.0.1)
22159570 1 QKSFM_CARDINALITY_22159570   correct non-popular region cardinality for hybrid histogram          (12.2.0.1)

I haven’t tested them yet, but with the code easily available in the article it won’t take long to see what the effects are when I have a few minutes. The first fix may also be why I had a final small discrepancy between 11g and 12c on the join on two columns with frequency histograms.

May 31, 2018

Min/Max upgrade

Filed under: 12c,Indexing,Oracle,Partitioning,Performance — Jonathan Lewis @ 2:13 pm BST May 31,2018

Here’s a nice little optimizer enhancement that appeared in 12.2 to make min/max range scans (and full scans) available in more circumstances. Rather than talk through it, here’s a little demonstration:

rem
rem     Script:         122_minmax.sql
rem     Author:         Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:          May 2018
rem     Purpose:
rem
rem     Last tested
rem             12.2.0.1        Good path
rem             12.1.0.2        Bad path

create table pt1 (
        object_id,
        owner,
        object_type,
        object_name,
        status,
        namespace
)
nologging
partition by hash (object_id) partitions 4
as
select
        object_id,
        owner,
        object_type,
        object_name,
        status,
        namespace
from
        (select * from all_objects),
        (select rownum n1 from dual connect by level <= 10) -- > comment to avoid format wordpress issue
;

alter table pt1 modify(status not null);

execute dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(null,'pt1',granularity=>'ALL',method_opt=>'for all columns size 1')

create index pt1_i1 on pt1(status, namespace) nologging local;

alter session set statistics_level = all;
set serveroutput off
set linesize 156
set pagesize 60
set trimspool on

select  min(status) from pt1;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'allstats last cost partition'));

select  min(namespace) from pt1 where status = 'INVALID';
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'allstats last cost partition'));

select  min(namespace) from pt1 where status = (select min(status) from pt1);
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'allstats last cost partition'));

The basic “min/max” optimisation allows Oracle to avoid a massive sort aggregate – Oracle doesn’t need to acquire a lot of data and sort it when it knows that the “left hand” end of an index is the low values and the “right hand” is the high values so, for example, in the first query above the optimizer could simply walk down the index branches to the left hand leaf and look at the single lowest entry in the leaf block to determine the lowest value for status … if the index had been a global index.

Things get a little messy, though, when the index is locally partitioned and your query isn’t about the partition key and there’s no suitable global index. Once upon a time (IIRC) Oracle would simply have to do an index fast full scan across all index partitions to handle such a query, but some time ago it got a lot cleverer and was enhanced to do a min/max scan on each partition in turn getting one value per partition very efficiently, then aggregating across those values to find the global minimum.

Here are the three execution plans (with rowsource execution stats pulled from memory) taken from 12.1.0.2 for the queries above:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                   | Name   | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Pstart| Pstop | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |        |      1 |        |     9 (100)|       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE             |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   2 |   PARTITION HASH ALL        |        |      1 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| PT1_I1 |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                     | Name   | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Pstart| Pstop | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |        |      1 |        |     9 (100)|       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE               |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   2 |   PARTITION HASH ALL          |        |      1 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   3 |    FIRST ROW                  |        |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)| PT1_I1 |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                      | Name   | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Pstart| Pstop | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers | Reads  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |        |      1 |        |   337 (100)|       |       |      1 |00:00:00.07 |    2402 |   2242 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE                |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.07 |    2402 |   2242 |
|   2 |   PARTITION HASH ALL           |        |      1 |    422K|   328  (10)|     1 |     4 |     10 |00:00:00.07 |    2402 |   2242 |
|*  3 |    INDEX FAST FULL SCAN        | PT1_I1 |      4 |    422K|   328  (10)|     1 |     4 |     10 |00:00:00.07 |    2402 |   2242 |
|   4 |     SORT AGGREGATE             |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |      0 |
|   5 |      PARTITION HASH ALL        |        |      1 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |      0 |
|   6 |       INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| PT1_I1 |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |      0 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first plan Oracle has done an “index full scan (min/max)” across each of the four partitions in turn to return one row very cheaply from each, then aggregated to find the overall minimum.

In the second plan Oracle has done an “index range scan (min/max)” in exactly the same way, since it was able to find the start point in the index for the status ‘INVALID’ very efficiently.

In the third plan Oracle has been able to find the minimum value for the status (‘INVALID’) very efficiently in the subquery, and has passed that single value up to the main query, which has then used a brute force approach to search the whole of every partition of the index for every occurrence (all 10 of them) of the value ‘INVALID’ and then aggregated them to find the minimum namespace. Despite “knowing”, by the time the main query runs, that there will be a single value to probe for the status, the optimizer has not anticipated the fact that the final query will effectively become the same as the preceding one. As a result we’ve read 2,242 data blocks into the cache.

Turn, then, to the execution plan from 12.2.0.1 for this last query:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                       | Name   | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Pstart| Pstop | A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                |        |      1 |        |     9 (100)|       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      24 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE                 |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      24 |
|   2 |   PARTITION HASH ALL            |        |      1 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      24 |
|   3 |    FIRST ROW                    |        |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|       |       |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      24 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)  | PT1_I1 |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      24 |
|   5 |      SORT AGGREGATE             |        |      1 |      1 |            |       |       |      1 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   6 |       PARTITION HASH ALL        |        |      1 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
|   7 |        INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| PT1_I1 |      4 |      1 |     9   (0)|     1 |     4 |      4 |00:00:00.01 |      12 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 12.2 you can see that the main query is now doing an “index range scan (min/max)” on each index partition in turn, based on the incoming (though unknown at parse time) single value from the subquery. As a result the total work done is a mere 24 buffer visits.

There have been a couple of occasions in the past where I’ve had to write some PL/SQL to work around little details like this. It’s nice to know simple tables and partitioned tables with local indexes can now behave the same way. I also wonder whether there may be sites that could drop (or drop columns from, or make local) some indexes that they’ve previously created to  handle queries of the “most recent occurrence” type.

If, for any reason, you need to disable this enhancement, it’s controlled by fix_control (v$system_fix_control) “18915345 Allow MIN/MAX optimization for pred having single row subquery” which can be set in the startup file, at the system level, or in the session.

Update

Checking MoS for the bug number I found that the limitation had been reported for 11.2.0.3, with “Fixed in product version” reported as 12.2; but there are patches for various releases of 11.2.0.4, though none yet for 12.1.0.2 – but if you think you need it you can always try raising an SR.

 

May 30, 2018

Upgrades

Filed under: 12c,Bugs,Function based indexes,Indexing,Oracle,Upgrades — Jonathan Lewis @ 10:08 am BST May 30,2018

One of my maxims for Oracle performance is: “Don’t try to be too clever”. Apart from the obvious reason that no-one else may be able to understand how to modify your code if the requirements change at a future date, there’s always the possibility that an Oracle upgrade will mean some clever trick you implemented will simply stop working.

While searching for information about a possible Oracle bug recently I noticed the following fix control (v$system_fix_control) in 12.2.0.1:


     BUGNO OPTIMIZE SQL_FEATURE                        DESCRIPTION                                                             VALUE
---------- -------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  18385778          QKSFM_CARDINALITY_18385778         avoid virtual col usage if FI is unusable or invisible 

Maybe that’s just invalidated an idea I published 12 years ago.

I haven’t researched the bug or any underlying SR, but I can think of valid argument both for and against the fix as described.

 

 

March 23, 2017

min/max Upgrade

Filed under: Bugs,CBO,Execution plans,Indexing,Oracle,Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 8:53 am GMT Mar 23,2017

A question came up on the OTN database forum a little while ago about a very simple query that was taking different execution paths on two databases with the same table and index definitions and similar data. In one database the plan used the “index full scan (min/max)” operation while the other database used a brute force “index fast full scan” operation.

In most circumstances the starting point to address a question like this is to check whether some configuration details, or some statistics, or the values used in the query are sufficiently different to result in a significant change in costs; and the first simple procedure you can follow is to hint each database to use the plan from the opposite database to see if this produces any clues about the difference – it’s a good idea when doing this test to use one of the more verbose formatting options for the call to dbms_xplan.

In this case, though, the OP discovered a note on MoS reporting exactly the problem he was seeing:

Doc ID 2144428.1: Optimizer Picking Wrong ‘INDEX FAST FULL SCAN’ Plan vs Correct ‘INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)’

which referred to

Bug 22662807: OPTIMIZER PICKING INDEX FFS CAN INSTEAD OF MIN/MAX

Conveniently the document suggested a few workarounds:

  • alter session set optimizer_features_enable = ‘11.2.0.3’;
  • alter session set “_fix_control” = ‘13430622:off’;
  • delete object stats [Ed: so that dynamic sampling takes place … maybe a /*+ dynamic_sampling(alias level) */ hint would suffice].

Of the three options my preference would (at least in the short term) be the _fix_control one. Specifically, from the v$system_fix_control view, we can see that it addresses the problem very precisely with the description: “index min/max cardinality estimate fix for filter predicates”.

The example in the bug note showed a very simple statement (even more simple than the OP’s query which was only a single table query anyway), so I thought I’d build a model and run a few tests to see what was going on. Luckily, before I’d started work, one of the other members of the Oak Table network sent an email to the list asking if anyone knew how the optimizer was costing an example he’d constructed – and I’ve finally got around to looking at his example, and here’s the model and answer(s), starting with the data set:


rem
rem     Script:         test_min_max.sql
rem     Dated:          March 2017
rem
rem     Last tested
rem             12.1.0.2
rem             11.2.0.4
rem             11.2.0.3
rem

create table min_max_test nologging
as
with ids as (
        select /*+ Materialize */ rownum  id from dual connect by rownum <= 50000 -- > comment to protect formatting
),
line_nrs as (
        select /*+ Materialize */  rownum line_nr from dual connect by rownum <= 20 -- > comment to protect formatting
)
select
        id, line_nr ,rpad(' ', 800, '*') data
from
        line_nrs, ids
order by
        line_nr, id
;

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

create index mmt_ln_id on min_max_test (line_nr, id) nologging;
create index mmt_id    on min_max_test (id)          nologging;

The table has two critical columns: each id has 20 line_nr values associated with it, but the way the data was generated means that the line numbers for a given id are scattered across 20 separate table blocks.

There are two indexes – one on the id which will allow us to find all the rows for a given id as efficiently as possible, and one (slightly odd-looking in this context) that would allow us to find a specific row for a given line_nr and id very efficiently. Two things about these indexes – in a live application they should both be compressed on the first (only, in the case of index mmt_id) column, and secondly the necessity of the mmt_id index is questionable and it might be an index you could drop if you reversed the order of the columns in mmt_ln_id. The thing about these indexes, though, is that they allow us to demonstrate a problem. So let’s query the data – twice, hinting each index in turn:


variable b1 number;
exec :b1 := 50000;

set serveroutput off

select
        /*+ index(t(id)) */
        min(line_nr)
from
        min_max_test t
where
        id = :b1
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor);

select
        /*+ index(t(line_nr, id)) */
        min(line_nr)
from
        min_max_test t
where
        id = :b1
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor);

It’s fairly safe to make a prediction about the execution plan and cost of the first query – it’s likely to be a range scan that accesses a couple of branch blocks, a leaf block and 20 separate table blocks followed by a “sort aggregate” – with a cost of about 23.

It’s a little harder to make a prediction about the second query. The optimizer could infer that the min(line_nr) has to be close to the left hand section of the index, and could note that the number of rows in the table is the same as the product of the number of distinct values of the two separate columns, and it might note that the id column is evenly distributed (no histogram) across the data, so it might “guess” that it need only range scan all the entries for the first line_nr to find the appropriate id. So perhaps the optimizer will use the index min/max range scan with a cost that is roughly 2 branch blocks plus total leaf blocks / 20 (since there are 20 distinct values for line_nr); maybe it would divide the leaf block estimate by two because “on average” – i.e. for repeated random selections of value for id – it would have to scan half the leaf blocks. There were 2,618 leaf blocks in my index, so the cost should be close to either 133 or 68.

Here are the two plans – range scan first, min/max second:


select  /*+ index(t(id)) */  min(line_nr) from  min_max_test t where id = :b1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                            | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                     |              |       |       |    23 (100)|          |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE                      |              |     1 |     8 |            |          |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| MIN_MAX_TEST |    20 |   160 |    23   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | MMT_ID       |    20 |       |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - access("ID"=:B1)

select  /*+ index(t(line_nr, id)) */  min(line_nr) from  min_max_test t where  id = :b1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                   | Name      | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |           |       |       |    22 (100)|          |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE             |           |     1 |     8 |            |          |
|   2 |   FIRST ROW                 |           |     1 |     8 |    22   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| MMT_LN_ID |     1 |     8 |    22   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - filter("ID"=:B1)

Spot on with the estimate for the simple range scan – but what did we do wrong with the estimate for the min/max scan ? You might notice in the first example the “table access by rowid batched” and realise that this is running on 12c. Here’s the plan if I get if I set the optimizer_features_enable back to 11.2.0.3 before running the second query again:


select  /*+ index(t(line_nr, id)) */  min(line_nr) from  min_max_test t where  id = :b1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                   | Name      | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |           |       |       |   136 (100)|          |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE             |           |     1 |     8 |            |          |
|   2 |   FIRST ROW                 |           |     1 |     8 |   136   (1)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN (MIN/MAX)| MMT_LN_ID |     1 |     8 |   136   (1)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   3 - filter("ID"=:B1)

Using the 11.2.0.3 optimizer model the plan has a cost that’s very close to our prediction – we’ll see why there’s a slight difference in a moment. If we set the optimizer_features_enable to 11.2.0.4 the cost drops back to 22. So for our example 11.2.0.3 will use the simple “index range scan” and an upgrade to 11.2.0.4 (or higher) will switch to the “index full scan (min/max)”. If you look at the OTN posting the impact of the change in costing is exactly the other way around – 11.2.0.3 uses the min/max path, 11.2.0.4 uses the simple index range scan.

The techy bit

You really don’t need to know this – experimenting with the optimizer_features_enable (or _fix_control) will give you plans that show you all the numbers you need to see to check whether or not you’ve run into this particular problem – but if you’re interested here’s a little bit from the two 10053 trace files. We need only look at a few critical lines. From the 11.2.0.3 costing for the min/max scan:


Index Stats::
  Index: MMT_ID  Col#: 1
  LVLS: 2  #LB: 2202  #DK: 50000  LB/K: 1.00  DB/K: 20.00  CLUF: 1000000.00  NRW: 1000000.00
  Index: MMT_LN_ID  Col#: 2 1
  LVLS: 2  #LB: 2618  #DK: 1000000  LB/K: 1.00  DB/K: 1.00  CLUF: 125000.00  NRW: 1000000.00

SINGLE TABLE ACCESS PATH
  Single Table Cardinality Estimation for MIN_MAX_TEST[T]
  Column (#1): ID(NUMBER)
    AvgLen: 5 NDV: 50536 Nulls: 0 Density: 0.000020 Min: 1.000000 Max: 50000.000000
  Table: MIN_MAX_TEST  Alias: T
    Card: Original: 1000000.000000  Rounded: 20  Computed: 19.787874  Non Adjusted: 19.787874

 ****** Costing Index MMT_LN_ID
  Access Path: index (Min/Max)
    Index: MMT_LN_ID
    resc_io: 135.000000  resc_cpu: 961594
    ix_sel: 1.000000  ix_sel_with_filters: 1.9788e-05
    Cost: 135.697679  Resp: 135.697679  Degree: 1

I was running 12.1.0.2 so there were a few extra bits and pieces that I’ve deleted (mostly about SQL Plan Directives and in-memory). Critically we can see that the stats collection has a small error for the ID column – 50,536 distinct values (NDV) instead of exactly 50,000. This seems to have given us a cost for the expected index range of: 2 (blevel) + ceiling(2618 (leaf blocks) * 50536 / 1000000) = 2 + ceil(132.3) = 135, to which we add a bit for the CPU and get to 136. (Q.E.D.)

Then we switch to costing for 11.2.0.4:


SINGLE TABLE ACCESS PATH
  Single Table Cardinality Estimation for MIN_MAX_TEST[T]
  Column (#1): ID(NUMBER)
    AvgLen: 5 NDV: 50536 Nulls: 0 Density: 0.000020 Min: 1.000000 Max: 50000.000000
  Table: MIN_MAX_TEST  Alias: T
    Card: Original: 1000000.000000  Rounded: 20  Computed: 19.787874  Non Adjusted: 19.787874

 ****** Costing Index MMT_LN_ID
  Access Path: index (Min/Max)
    Index: MMT_LN_ID
    resc_io: 21.787874  resc_cpu: 156872
    ix_sel: 1.000000  ix_sel_with_filters: 1.9788e-05
    Cost: 22.324608  Resp: 22.324608  Degree: 1

We still have the small error in the number of distinct values for id, so the estimated number of rows that we need to access from the table for a given id (before “aggregating” to find its minimum line_nr) is 19.787874 (Computed: / Non Adjusted:) rather than exactly 20. Notice, then, that the cost of using the index is 19.787874 + 2 which looks suspiciously like adding the blevel to the number of table blocks to get a cost and forgetting that we might have to kiss a lot of frogs before we find the prince. Basically, in this example at least, it looks like the costing algorithm has NOTHING to do with the mechanics of what actually has to happen at run-time.

Footnote

This is only an initial probe into what’s going on with the min/max scan; there are plenty more patterns of data that would need to be tested before we could have any confidence that we had produced a generic model of how the optimizer does its calculations – the only thing to note so far is that there IS a big change as  you move from 11.2.0.3 to later versions: the case on OTN showed the min/max scan disappearing on the upgrade, the example above shows the min/max disappearing on the downgrade – either change could be bad news for parts of a production system.

There are a couple of related bugs that might also be worth reviewing.

  • Bug 11834402 : CBO CHOOSES A SLOW INDEX FULL SCAN OVER A MUCH FASTER INDEX RANGE SCAN
  • Bug 13430622 : INDEX SCAN IN VERY SLOW FOR ONE PREDICATE AND FAST FOR OTHERS

There is a note, though that this last bug was fixed in 12.1

Footnote 2

When experimenting, one idea to pursue as the models get more complex and you’re using indexes with more than two columns is to test whether the presence of carefully chosen column group statistics might make a difference to the optimizer’s estimates of cardinality (hence cost) of the min/max scan.

June 28, 2013

12c Debug

Filed under: 12c,Bugs,Oracle — Jonathan Lewis @ 8:45 am BST Jun 28,2013

Now that 12c is out, here’s an idea that might save you some time even if you have no intention of migrating to, or even testing, the product for a couple of years. Download the “List of bugs fixed in 12c”: you may find that it’s the best starting point when you’re trying to solve a problem in your current version of Oracle.

A slightly more sophisticated version of the same thing – download and install the product, then take a dump of v$system_fix_control – that may also give you some insight into anomalies (that are not necessarily declared as bugs) in the way Oracle – and the optimizer in particular – behave. I updated the referenced note to add in a couple of figures for 12.1 – but one figure that’s not there is the number of database parameters: now at 368 in the v$ and 3,333 in the x$ (in my Beta 3 release).

February 20, 2012

Upgrades

Filed under: CBO,Oracle,Upgrades — Jonathan Lewis @ 5:53 pm GMT Feb 20,2012

A couple of weeks ago I posted a reference list of links to the bug fix notes for several of the most recent versions of Oracle – and several of the links recorded a surprisingly large number of clicks very rapidly, especially the 11.2.0.3 link. As a follow-up on the difficulties of upgrading, then, and with an insight into the number of enhancements and fixes to the optimizer that take place I decided to take a look at recent developments in the “fix control” list, and the “optimizer environment” parameters. Here’s a breakdown of the number of entries in recent versions of Oracle. [Updated for 12.1 and 18.3 May 2019]

(more…)

February 3, 2011

Upgrade issues

Filed under: CBO,Oracle,Partitioning,Troubleshooting,Upgrades — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:41 pm GMT Feb 3,2011

Here’s an example of how a bug-fix can create problems. It’s a code change in 11.2.x.x and (I believe) 10.2.0.5 relating to the costing of queries involving (but perhaps not restricted to) composite partitioned tables. I first saw this change in an email from Doug Burns, who sent me the 10053 traces from a very simple query that had started using the wrong index after an upgrade from 10.2.0.4 to 11.2.0.2.

As part of his testing he had set the optimizer_features_enable parameter back to 10.2.0.4 and found that not only did the choice of index change back to the expected index, but the costs of the two indexes changed dramatically. (The cost of using the “right” index changed from 15 to something in excess of 9,000 on the upgrade!)

(more…)

January 28, 2011

Fix Control

Filed under: Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 3:35 pm GMT Jan 28,2011

There’s a very useful posting from Coskan Gundogar about tracking down a problem to do with an 11g upgrade.

The method basically revolves around a quick check for “known issues” that might be relevant by looking at the dynamic performance views v$system_fix_control.

When I read Coskan’s notes I had forgotten that I had written a short item about this myself about a year ago where I listed the relatively small number of items available in 10.2.0.3. The list is up to 1070 items in 12.1.0.2.

 

December 22, 2009

Optimizer Features

Filed under: CBO,Troubleshooting — Jonathan Lewis @ 6:53 pm GMT Dec 22,2009

Each time you upgrade the Oracle server (even with a patch release), you may find that some strange things happen to a few execution paths. Every release carries some changes to the optimizer code – sometimes enhancements, sometimes bug fixes – and every change might be one that just happens to do something nasty with your existing code.

A little feature that may help when you upgrade is the view v$system_fix_control. This is a view which lists a number of bug fixes that you can disable with the _fix_control parameter. (The parameter and view appeared 10.2.0.2, I believe).

(more…)

Powered by WordPress.com.