FBIs don’t exist

This is a reprint (of a reprint) of a note I wrote more than 11 years ago on my old website. I’ve decided to republish it on the blog simply because one day I’ll probably decide to stop paying for the website given how old all the material is and this article makes an important point about the need (at least some of the time) for accuracy in the words you use to describe things.

—————————————————————————-

There’s no such thing as a function-based index.

Well, okay, that’s what the manuals call them but it would be so much better if they were called “indexes with virtual columns” – because that’s what they are and that’s a name that would eliminate confusion.

To demonstrate what I mean, ask yourself this question: “Can the rule based optimizer use a function-based index ?”. The answer is ‘Yes’, as the following code fragment demonstrates:

rem
rem     Script:         fbi_rule.sql
rem     Author:         Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:          Jan 2005
rem

create table t1 as
select
         rownum                         id,
         dbms_random.value(0,500)       n1,
         rpad('x',10)                   small_vc,
         rpad('x',100)                  padding
from
         all_objects
where
         rownum <= 3000
;
 
create index t1_i1 on t1(id, trunc(n1));
 
set autotrace traceonly explain
 
select
         /*+ rule */
         small_vc
from
         t1
where    id = 55
and      trunc(n1) between 1 and 10
;


set autotrace off
 
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=HINT: RULE
1   0    TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T1'
2   1      INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T1_I1' (NON-UNIQUE)

Last time I asked an audience if the rule-based optimizer (RBO) could use a function-based index, most of them thought the answer was ‘No’. Even the Oracle manuals make the same mistake – for example in the 10g Release 2 Application Developers Guide p5-8, one of the restrictions on function-based indexes is “Only cost based optimization can use function-based indexes”.

If I had asked the audience “Can the rule-based optimizer use an index which includes a virtual column ?” I wonder how many of them would have paused for thought, then asked themselves what would happen if the index started with “ordinary” columns and the “function-based” bit was later on in the index.

The manuals should, of course, state: “The rule-based optimizer cannot take advantage of any virtual columns in an index, or of any columns that follow the first virtual column”. Given a correct name and a correct description of functionality you can then conclude that if the first column is a virtual column the rule-based optimizer won’t use the index.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that you should be using the rule-based optimizer, or even that this specific example of functionality is going to be particularly beneficial to many people (RBO still uses the “trunc(n1)” as a filter predicate after reaching the table rather than as an access predicate – or even filter predicate – on the index); but it does demonstrate how easy it is for the wrong name, or terminology, to distract people from the truth.

And here’s another thought for Oracle Corporation. Since it seems to be easy to implement virtual columns (there is a hidden entry for each such column in the data dictionary, and the text of the function defining the column appears as the default value), why should they exist only in indexes? Why can’t we have virtual columns which aren’t indexed, so that we can collect statistics on a virtual column and give the optimizer some information about the data distribution of some commonly used expression that we don’t actually want to build an index on.

(Update Jan 2007 – this is likely to happen in 11g according to ‘sneak preview’ presentations made by Oracle at OW2006.

P.S. There really are function-based indexes in Oracle. But Oracle Corp. calls them domain indexes (or co-operative indexes) and tells you that the things you build them with are operators, not functions … which actually makes them operator-based indexes!

—————————————————————————-

 Footnote (May 2018)

I’ve updated the reference to the 10g manuals (chapter 5 page 8) to include a URL, but the URL is for 11gR2 since the only 10g manual I could find online was the full pdf download.  It’s  interesting to note what restrictions on the use of “function-based” indexes are reported in this manual, and I’m not sure that all of them were true at the time, and I’m fairly sure that some of them must be false by now, which is why it’s always good to have test scripts that you can run as you upgrade.

There is an interesting variation over time for this example:

• In 9.2.0.8 and 10.2.0.5 the predicate on trunc(n1) is a filter predicate on the table
• In 11.1.0.7 the predicate trunc(n1) became an access predicate in the index
• In 11.2.0.4 the optimizer (finally) declined to use the index under the rule hint (but introduced a strange side effect … more about that later)

Execution plan from 11.1.0.7

Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 1429545322

---------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                   | Name  |
---------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |       |
|   1 |  TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1    |
|*  2 |   INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_I1 |
---------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - access("ID"=55 AND TRUNC("N1")>=1 AND TRUNC("N1")<=10)

Note
-----
   - rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)

In passing – the change in the execution plan from 10g to 11.1 to 11.2 does mean that anyone still using the rule-based optimizer could find that an upgrade makes a difference to rule-based execution plans.

As well as ignoring the index, 11.2.0.4 did something else that was new. I happened to have a second index on the table defined as (n1, trunc(id)); this had no impact on the execution plan for all the previous versions of Oracle, apart from switching to a full tablescan 11.2.0.4 also introduced an extra predicate:

PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3617692013

----------------------------------
| Id  | Operation         | Name |
----------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT  |      |
|*  1 |  TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |
----------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(TRUNC("N1")<=10 AND TRUNC("N1")>=1 AND
              TRUNC("ID")=TRUNC(55) AND "ID"=55)

Note
-----
   - rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)

Some piece of code somewhere must have been looking at the second “function-based index” – or, at least, it’s virtual column definition – to be able to generate that trunc(id) = trunc(55) predicate. This was a detail introduced in 11.2.0.2, affected by fix control 9263333: “generate transitive predicates for virtual column expressions”. It’s possible that a change like this could result in changes in execution plan due to the extra predicates – even under rule-based optimisation.

FBI Limitation

A recent question on the ODC (OTN) database forum prompted me to point out that the optimizer doesn’t consider function-based indexes on remote tables in distributed joins. I then spent 20 minutes trying to find the blog note where I had demonstrated this effect, or an entry in the manuals reporting the limitation – but I couldn’t find anything, so I’ve written a quick demo which I’ve run on 12.2.0.1 to show the effect. First, the SQL to create a couple of tables and a couple of indexes:

rem
rem     Script:         fbi_limitation.sql
rem     Author:         Jonathan Lewis
rem     Dated:          May 2018
rem

-- create public database link orcl@loopback using 'orcl'; 
define m_target = orcl@loopback

create table t1
segment creation immediate
nologging
as
with generator as (
        select
                rownum id
        from dual
        connect by
                level <= 1e4 -- > comment to avoid WordPress format issue
)
select
        rownum                          id,
        rownum                          n1,
        lpad(rownum,10,'0')             v1,
        lpad('x',100,'x')               padding
from
        generator       v1,
        generator       v2
where
        rownum <= 1e6 -- > comment to avoid WordPress format issue
;

create table t2
nologging
as
select * from t1
;

alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key(id);
alter table t2 add constraint t2_pk primary key(id);
create unique index t2_f1 on t2(id+1);

begin
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname     => user,
                tabname     => 'T1',
                cascade     => true,
                method_opt  => 'for all columns size 1'
        );

        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname     => user,
                tabname     => 'T2',
                cascade     => true,
                method_opt  => 'for all columns size 1'
        );
end;
/

The code is very simple, it creates a couple of identical tables with an id column that will produce an index with a very good clustering_factor. You’ll notice that I’ve (previously) created a public database link that is (in my case) a loopback to the current database and the code defines a variable that I can use as a substitution variable later on. If you want to do further tests with this model you’ll need to make some changes in these two lines.

So now I’m going to execute a query that should result in the optimizer choosing a nested loop between the tables – but I have two versions of the query, one which treats t2 as the local table it really is, and one that pretends (through the loopback) that t2 is remote.

set serveroutput off

select
        t1.v1, t2.v1
from
        t1,
        t2
--      t2@orcl@loopback
where
        t2.id+1 = t1.id
and     t1.n1 between 101 and 110
;


select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor);

select
        t1.v1, t2.v1
from
        t1,
--      t2
        t2@orcl@loopback
where
        t2.id+1 = t1.id
and     t1.n1 between 101 and 110
;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor);

Here are the two execution plans, pulled from memory – including the “remote” section in the distributed case:

SQL_ID  fthq1tqthq8js, child number 0
-------------------------------------
select  t1.v1, t2.v1 from  t1,  t2 -- t2@orcl@loopback where  t2.id+1 =
t1.id and t1.n1 between 101 and 110

Plan hash value: 1798294492

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                    | Name  | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |       |       |       |  2347 (100)|          |
|   1 |  NESTED LOOPS                |       |    11 |   407 |  2347   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL          | T1    |    11 |   231 |  2325   (4)| 00:00:01 |
|   3 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T2    |     1 |    16 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  4 |    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | T2_F1 |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - filter(("T1"."N1"<=110 AND "T1"."N1">=101))
   4 - access("T2"."SYS_NC00005$"="T1"."ID")

Note
-----
   - this is an adaptive plan




SQL_ID  ftnmywddff1bb, child number 0
-------------------------------------
select  t1.v1, t2.v1 from  t1, -- t2  t2@orcl@loopback where  t2.id+1 =
t1.id and t1.n1 between 101 and 110

Plan hash value: 1770389500

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation          | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Inst   |IN-OUT|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT   |      |       |       |  4663 (100)|          |        |      |
|*  1 |  HASH JOIN         |      |    11 |   616 |  4663   (4)| 00:00:01 |        |      |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1   |    11 |   231 |  2325   (4)| 00:00:01 |        |      |
|   3 |   REMOTE           | T2   |  1000K|    33M|  2319   (3)| 00:00:01 | ORCL@~ | R->S |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - access("T1"."ID"="T2"."ID"+1)
   2 - filter(("T1"."N1"<=110 AND "T1"."N1">=101))

Remote SQL Information (identified by operation id):
----------------------------------------------------
   3 - SELECT "ID","V1" FROM "T2" "T2" (accessing 'ORCL@LOOPBACK' )

Both plans show that the optimizer has estimated the number of rows that would be retrieved from t1 correctly (very nearly); but while the fully local query does a nested loop join using the high-precision, very efficient function-based index (reporting the internal supporting column referenced in the predicate section) the distributed query seems to have no idea about the remote function-based index and select all the required rows from the remote table and does a hash join.

Footnote:

Another reason for changes in execution plan when you test fully local and then run distributed is due to the optimizer ignoring remote histograms, as demonstrated in a much older blog note (though still true in 12.2.0.1).

Addendum

After finishing this note, I discovered that I had written a similar note about reverse key indexes nearly five years ago. Arguably a reverse key is just a special case of a function-based index – except it’s not labelled as such in user_tab_cols, and doesn’t depend on a system-generated hidden column.

 

Adding Indexes

The following question came up on the OTN database forum recently:

We have below table with columns,

Table T1
Columns:
-----------
Col_1, Col_2, Col_3, Col_4, Col_5, Col_6, Col_7, Col_8, Col_9, Col_10, Col_11, Col_12, Col_13, Col_14, Col_15

on which below indexes are created.

XXTEST_Col_1    Col_1
XXTEST_Col_2    Col_2
XXTEST_Col_3    Col_3
XXTEST_Col_5    Col_5
XXTEST_Col_6    Col_6
XXTEST_Col_7    Col_7
XXTEST_Col_8    Col_8
XXTEST_Col_8    (Col_4, Col_10, Col_11)

I have requirement to update table T1 as below and it’s taking really long. [JPL: I’m assuming that the naming of the second xxtest_col_8 index is a trivial error introduced while the OP was concealing names.)

UPDATE T1
SET Col_3 = x_value,
    Col_6 = y_value
where Col_4='N'
and Col_3 IS NULL;

To improve performance, created below index and it improved the performance of the update.

 
New Index:  XXTEST_Col_4    (Col_4, Col_3)

My question is it good idea to create the above index with already existing indexes? Is there any other better way to handle this?

There is insufficient information to answer these questions properly but if I had been given this problem there are several things I’d want to check before I came up with any answers. (In the absence of complete information the default answers are “probably not”, “probably”).

What Happened

The first question, of course, is “why did the update take a really long time?”, and the second is “why did the performance improve after the index creation?”.

There are (generally) two execution paths for the update – full tablescan or index access through the index starting with col_4. Whichever path Oracle took would the update have been faster (and fast enough) if the alternative path had been taken ?  (I have to include the “generally” caveat since it’s just possible that with silly settings for a couple of parameters and statistics the optimizer could have been doing an amazingly stupid “index full scan” on any index that contained a column declared as not null.)

Then consider the fact that the update is changing two columns that are indexed – and one of those columns (col_3) is changing from null to a value, so it’s going to increase the size of the index. Is the slow performance due to the time spent maintaining the indexes, and is the improved performance due to the fact that there are no rows left to update because the first run of the test updated all of them ?

It does seem reasonably likely that Oracle would use the new index for the update and that the better precision would be the cause of the improved performance; but a side effect of the index creation is that Oracle would now have some statistics about the combination of (col_4, col_3) that wasn’t previously available. Perhaps gathering stats on the column group (col_4, col_3) would have been sufficient to result in a change in execution path that would have given the required performance without introducing the extra  maintenance costs.

What’s the requirement

Before deciding whether or not an index should be used to improve the performance of a statement it’s important to have some idea of the cost/benefit/risk analysis. This often boils down to “how much data should change, how often does it happen, what could possibly go wrong”.

As far as “what could possibly go wrong” – by adding the index (col_4, col_3) we introduce 4 groups of risk:

• any SQL currently using the col_3 index might change plans
• any SQL currently using the (col_4, col_10, col_11) index might change plans
• any query that has a predicate “col_3 is null” might change plans because that predicate could be resolved in the index if col_4 had been declared not null,
• any query with equality predicates on both col_3 and col_4 might change plans because the new index supplies some statistics about the combination

We don’t have enough information to evaluate the degree of risk – and we haven’t been given any figures about the volume of data that changes or the frequency with which the update runs, so we can’t really say much beyond raising the warning flags.

What does the data look like.

Despite my closing comment above, we have two little clues about the data. First is that one of the predicates is col_4 = ‘N’ – to me this always raises the suspicion that we’re looking at a column which is a Yes/No, or Yes/No/NULL column; secondly the OP has marked the following response as “Correct Answer”:

Depends on your data.
Check count of both queries

select count(*) from T1 where Col_4='N' and Col_3 IS NULL;
select count(*) from T1 where Col_4='N';

If there is a significant difference in count, and delete is executed frequently, it might be good to have

If we assume that this means (a) there is a significant difference in the counts and (b) the delete IS executed frequently then we we have some (though not really enough) useful information about what the data looks like and how it is handled. Perhaps over a short period of time a small volume of new data appears where col_3 is null and there is a scheduled mechanism that looks for that data and modifies it.

If that’s the case then an index that gives use high precision when we’re searching for a (very) small amount of data from a very large table would be very helpful, while an index that starts with the first of our search columns (col_4 is the leading column of an existing index) might actually be a liability if we do a large range scan, visit the table for lots of rows, and then discard them because they fail our second predicate.

However, if this IS the case then it’s not a good idea to create a large index that is constantly subject to change – especially if the update from NULL to something else results in updates that scatter the col_3 values randomly around the index. (The NULL rows will be well packed in the index, and may be in a small collection of recent table blocks; but the update will delete one index entry and we have no idea about the impact that inserting the replacement could have.) So, if we’re also allowed to modify the code, let’s create an index that is as small as possible, won’t be used accidentally by any other code, and minimises the workload when updated. Here’s the code to create the index and one option for gathering stats on the resulting hidden column, and the modified update code:

create index xxtext_fbi1 on t1(
        case when col_4='N' and col_3 is null then 0 end
)
;

begin
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                user,
                't1',
                method_opt=>'for columns (case when col_4=''N'' and col_3 is null then 0 end) size 1'
        );
end;
/

update t1 set
        col_3 = {x_value},
        col_6 = {y_value}
where
        case when col_4='N' and col_3 is null then 0 end = 0
;

This index will contain entries for just those rows that we need to update, and when we update them the index entries will simply disappear. The index is the smallest that we could have, with the minimum workload imposed, and no risk of being hi-jacked by any other process.

As a variation on a theme, and depending on version, we could create a virtual column with this definition (making it invisible in 12c) and creating an index on the virtual column. For preference I think I’d use the FBI in 11g, and the invisible virtual column in 12c.

alter table t1
add (
        wanted_flag invisible
        generated always as (
                case when col_4='N' and col_3 is null then 0 end
        ) virtual
)
;

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

create index xxtest_virt1 on t1(wanted_flag);

update t1 set
        col_3 = {x_value},
        col_6 = {y_value}
where
        wanted_flag = 0
;

The thread raised a couple of other worthwhile points – one post pointed out that if they were going to create a new index they would want to make it as useful for as many other processes as possible: this, of course, is a different view on the cost/benefit/risk assessment, especially (I would say) if there is no option to create a very small, low-cost, index that is guaranteeably safe. The point also came up that there are two or three variations on how one could produce an expression that produced index entries only for the rows where col_4 = ‘N’ and col_3 is null; and a point about further possibilities if there were a few different values for col_4 that resulted in similar queries.

NLS Mess

The Oracle database has all sorts of little details built into it to help it deal with multi-national companies, but since they’re not commonly used you can find all sorts of odd “buggy” bits of behaviour when you start to look closely. I have to put “buggy” in quotes because some of the reported oddities are the inevitable consequences of (for example) how multi-byte character sets have to work; but some of the oddities look as if they simply wouldn’t be there if the programmer writing the relevant bit of code had remembered that they also had to cater for some NLS feature.

Here’s an example of the type of unexpected behaviour that can appear. There probably are some bugs in the area I’m going to demonstrate but, at first glance, I thought I was looking at an acceptable limitation imposed by a generic requirement. The example came from AskTom. which is why the data set isn’t my usual “t1” generation (and the formatting and capitalisation isn’t according to my usual standards).

The problem involves Case Insensitive indexing.

ALTER session SET nls_sort=binary_ci;
ALTER session SET nls_comp=linguistic;

CREATE TABLE log_data(
  account_id NUMBER,
  log_type NUMBER,
  sys_name VARCHAR2(30),
  log_time TIMESTAMP,
  msg varchar2(4000)
)
nologging
;

insert /*+ append */ into log_data(
  account_id,
  log_type,
  sys_name,
  log_time,
  msg
)
select
        5,
        2,
        dbms_random.string('a',1),
        sysdate + dbms_random.value,
        rpad('x',200)
from
        dual
connect by
        level <= 26000
;

create index log_date on log_data (
        account_id, 
        log_type, 
--      sys_name,
        NLSSORT(sys_name,'NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI'),
        log_time
)
nologging
;
  
rem     ======================================================================
rem     Need to gather stats AFTER index creation because of the hidden column
rem     ======================================================================
  
begin
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname          => user,
                tabname          =>'LOG_DATA',
                method_opt       => 'for all columns size 1'
        );
end;
/

And here’s the query I want to optimize:

SELECT 
        *
FROM
  (
    SELECT
        sys_name, log_time,  substr(msg,1,40) msg
    FROM log_data
    WHERE
      account_id=5
      AND log_type=2
      AND sys_name='a'
    ORDER BY
      log_time  desc
  )
WHERE
  rownum <= 10
;

The requirement of the query is that we see the ten most recent entries for a given combination of account_id, log_type and sys_name (ignoring case in sys_name). The orginal table has tens of millions of rows, of course, with many combinations, and some of the combinations have a very large number of entries hence the desire to find an access path that gets just the 10 rows we want without getting all the rows for a combination and sorting them before returning the ten.

Normally we would just create an index that started with the 3 columns used in the equality and ending with the column in the order by clause, and that would be enough for the optimizer to see the option for a “sort order by nosort” operation to get the required data through an index range scan; so that’s the index the code sample creates, except that since we’ve enabled case insensitive sorting we need to use a function-based index to hold the case-insensitive version of sys_name.

Here’s the execution plan we would get if we DIDN’T use the nlssort() function in the index – I’ve run the query in 11.2.0.4 and pulled the plan from memory with rowsource execution stats enabled:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                      | Name     | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |          |      1 |        |   605 (100)|     10 |00:00:00.02 |    1065 |       |       |          |
|*  1 |  COUNT STOPKEY                 |          |      1 |        |            |     10 |00:00:00.02 |    1065 |       |       |          |
|   2 |   VIEW                         |          |      1 |    500 |   605   (1)|     10 |00:00:00.02 |    1065 |       |       |          |
|*  3 |    SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY       |          |      1 |    500 |   605   (1)|     10 |00:00:00.02 |    1065 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|   4 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| LOG_DATA |      1 |    500 |   603   (1)|    966 |00:00:00.01 |    1065 |       |       |          |
|*  5 |      INDEX RANGE SCAN          | LOG_DATE |      1 |    500 |   103   (3)|    966 |00:00:00.01 |     100 |       |       |          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   3 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   5 - access("ACCOUNT_ID"=5 AND "LOG_TYPE"=2)
       filter(NLSSORT("SYS_NAME",'nls_sort=''BINARY_CI''')=HEXTORAW('6100') )

Notice particularly the filter predicate at operation 5: that’s the thing we need to get into the index before we can avoid picking up excess data and sorting it. Notice also in the A-Rows column that we acquired 966 rows from the table before sorting and discarding all but 10 of them at operation 3.

Notice especially how important it is to look at the predicate section of an execution plan to gain a full understanding of what’s happening.

So here’s the execution plan we get by default with the function-based index in place:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                       | Name     | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |  OMem |  1Mem | Used-Mem |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                |          |      1 |        |    13 (100)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |     969 |       |       |          |
|*  1 |  COUNT STOPKEY                  |          |      1 |        |            |     10 |00:00:00.01 |     969 |       |       |          |
|   2 |   VIEW                          |          |      1 |     11 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |     969 |       |       |          |
|*  3 |    SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY        |          |      1 |     11 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |     969 |  2048 |  2048 | 2048  (0)|
|   4 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | LOG_DATA |      1 |   1000 |    13   (0)|    966 |00:00:00.01 |     969 |       |       |          |
|*  5 |      INDEX RANGE SCAN DESCENDING| LOG_DATE |      1 |     11 |     2   (0)|    966 |00:00:00.01 |       5 |       |       |          |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   3 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   5 - access("ACCOUNT_ID"=5 AND "LOG_TYPE"=2 AND "LOG_DATA"."SYS_NC00006$"=HEXTORAW('6100') )

It didn’t work ! (Check the A-Rows at operations 4 and 5, and the sort that we didn’t want at operation 3 where the data is finally reduced to 10 rows.

But there’s something odd going on here – look at the predicate section: our three predicates are all access predicates for the index range scan descending. We are doing exactly what we want to do with the index, but we’re not stopping after the 10 rows that we need, we’re getting all of them (in the order we want) and then doing a trivial sort and discard. Look at the Cost column – the cost at operation 4 is exactly what we might expect for the 10 rows we want to see, and the E-rows at line 5 is clearly based on our “first 10 rows” requirement.

This raises two questions:

1. What’s gone wrong ?
2. Can we work around the problem ?

The answer to (1) is, I think, that there’s a bug in the code. Looking at the 10053 trace file I can see the optimizer correctly handling the arithmetic of the virtual column (the sys_nc000006$) representing the function in the index and then getting to the point where it goes into a code section relating to “Recost for ORDER BY”, and brings back the original function as a filter predicate – I think that in the recosting it may be losing track of the fact that sys_nc000006$ and nlssort(sys_name, ‘nls_sort=binary_ci’) are the same thing and therefore can’t apply the rule about “Equality on 1st N columns, order by on the remainder”.

There are several answers to (2).

Workarounds

The honest hack

The first one is simply to fall back to the old (probably version 7, possibly version 8) requirement for getting the “sort order by nosort” operation – put all the index columns into the order by clause. Unfortunately the optimizer then did a tablescan rather than an index range scan because my data set was so small, so I had to hack the system stats temporarily to make the tablescan very expensive:

begin
        dbms_stats.set_system_stats('MBRC',2);
        dbms_stats.set_system_stats('MREADTIM',20); 
        dbms_stats.set_system_stats('SREADTIM',5);
        dbms_stats.set_system_stats('CPUSPEED',1000); 
end;
/

... order by account_id desc, log_type desc, sys_name desc, lot_time desc

Unfortunately the optimizer still went wrong – it did an ASCENDING index range scan sorting all the data. I actually had to hint the code to use the index in descending order to get the following execution plan:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                      | Name     | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |          |      1 |        |  1215 (100)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  1 |  COUNT STOPKEY                 |          |      1 |        |            |     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   2 |   VIEW                         |          |      1 |   1000 |  1215   (1)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | LOG_DATA |      1 |   1000 |  1006   (1)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN DESCENDING| LOG_DATE |      1 |   1000 |     5   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |       3 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   4 - access("ACCOUNT_ID"=5 AND "LOG_TYPE"=2 AND "LOG_DATA"."SYS_NC00006$"=HEXTORAW('6100') )

The A-Rows tells us we’ve accessed the minimum data set, and the absence of the SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY operation tells us that we’ve avoided doing the sort. Notice, though that the cost is the cost that would have been appropriate if we have accessed all 1,000 rows that matched the equality predicates. This is an example of a plan that you couldn’t really trust if all you had done was an “explain plan” rather than running the query and checking the rowsource execution stats. If you ignore the A-Rows it looks as if the plan WOULD get all the data in order and only eliminate the redundant rows at operation 1.

The silly surprise

The original author of the problem came up with this one. Put in two predicates which, between them are equivalent to the original requirement:

where ...
and     sys_name >= 'a'
and     sys_name <= 'a'

Clearly this is totally silly – the optimizer can fold this pair of predicates into the single predicate “sys_name = ‘a'”, so it shouldn’t make any difference. But here’s the execution plan:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                      | Name     | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |          |      1 |        |    13 (100)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  1 |  COUNT STOPKEY                 |          |      1 |        |            |     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   2 |   VIEW                         |          |      1 |     11 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | LOG_DATA |      1 |   1000 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN DESCENDING| LOG_DATE |      1 |     11 |     2   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |       3 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   4 - access("ACCOUNT_ID"=5 AND "LOG_TYPE"=2 AND "LOG_DATA"."SYS_NC00006$"=HEXTORAW('6100') )

Yes, it’s (structurally) exactly the same plan, with exactly the same predicate section except that (a) it gets there without being hinted, (b) the Cost column looks appropriate all down the line, and (c) the E-Rows value for the VIEW operator would have helped us appreciate that the correct elimination was (probably) going to happen if all we had done was the Explain Plan.

The dirty hack

I know the name of the hidden column that’s causing the problem, and I know how to generate the value it has to be – so let’s give Oracle exactly what it needs to see rather than allowing its internal transformation to rewrite the SQL:

...
AND sys_nc00006$ = nlssort('a','nls_sort=binary_ci')
...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                      | Name     | Starts | E-Rows | Cost (%CPU)| A-Rows |   A-Time   | Buffers |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |          |      1 |        |    13 (100)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  1 |  COUNT STOPKEY                 |          |      1 |        |            |     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   2 |   VIEW                         |          |      1 |     11 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | LOG_DATA |      1 |   1000 |    13   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |      13 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN DESCENDING| LOG_DATE |      1 |     11 |     2   (0)|     10 |00:00:00.01 |       3 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   1 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
   4 - access("ACCOUNT_ID"=5 AND "LOG_TYPE"=2 AND "SYS_NC00006$"=HEXTORAW('6100') )

We get exactly the plan we need – and the silly thing about this example is that it’s a case where we get the plan we want by EXPLICITLY transforming the SQL to reproduce the transformation that Oracle had done IMPLICITLY and then messed up !

Final Choice
Of the three options – the dirty hack is definitely a no-no in production; the “double the predicate” trock is undesirable because it may depend in some unexpected way on a particular optimizer bug or on some statistical detail that could change; so I’d choose the hinted path with the (nominally) redundant columns.

One final point about this solution, we actually needed to include only the sys_name in the order by clause to use the descending range scan and early stop – which is basically another indication that it’s something about the function-based column that is breaking the normal code path.

Reference Script: nls_sort_anomaly.sql

Index Usage – 4

Here’s a thought that came to me while I was writing up a note about identifying redundant indexes a few minutes ago. Sometimes you end up supporting applications with unexpected duplication of data and indexes and need to find ways to reduce overheads. Here’s some code modelling a scenario that I’ve seen more often than I like (actually, just once would be more often than I’d like):

create table t1
nologging
as
with generator as (
        select  --+ materialize
                rownum id
        from dual
        connect by
                level <= 1e5
)
select
        rownum                                          id,
        trunc(sysdate,'MM') + (rownum-1)/1440           date_time,
        trunc(sysdate,'MM') + trunc((rownum-1)/1440)    date_only,
        rpad('x',100)                                   padding
from
        generator       v1,
        generator       v2
where
        rownum <= 1e5     --> fudge to bypass WordPress format anomaly
;

begin 
        dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
                ownname          => user,
                tabname          => 'T1',
                method_opt       => 'for all columns size 1'
        );
end;
/

I’ve got a table holding one row per minute since the start of the month; there’s a column which holds the date and time accurate to the minute, and another column which is supposed to hold just the date part. Is it possible to create a single index that allows Oracle to handles queries relatively efficiently whether they refer to date_time or date_only ? As a starting step could we get an index range scan on the same index for both of the following queries:

select
        max(id)
from
        t1
where
        date_only between sysdate-1 and sysdate
;


select
        max(id)
from
        t1
where
        date_time between sysdate-1 and sysdate
;

As Bob the Builder likes to say: “yes we can”.

There are a few lines of SQL between the table creation and the stats gathering that I didn’t show you. The first creates the constraint that describes the relationship between date_time and date_only – one is the truncated version of the other; the second defines the index we need, and the third (unfortunately) has to be there to declare the date_time column as a mandatory column:

alter table t1
        add constraint t1_trunc_date
        check(
                  date_only = trunc(date_time)
              and (   (date_only is null and date_time is null)
                   or (date_only is not null and date_time is not null)
              )
        )
;

create index t1_i1 on t1(trunc(date_time)) nologging;

alter table t1 modify (date_time not null);

(Given the requirement for date_time to be not null to get my indexing strategy to work, we could simplify the t1_trunc_date constraint to just (date_only = trunc(date_time)) if we declared date_only to be not null as well).

With the extra lines of SQL included here are the resulting execution plans for the two queries (running on 11.2.0.4, but you get the same plans on 12.1.0.2):

=======================================
date_only between sysdate-1 and sysdate
=======================================

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                     | Name  | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |       |     1 |    21 |    92   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE               |       |     1 |    21 |            |          |
|*  2 |   FILTER                      |       |       |       |            |          |
|*  3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1    |  4306 | 90426 |    92   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_I1 |  4306 |       |    13   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter(SYSDATE@!>=SYSDATE@!-1)
   3 - filter("DATE_ONLY"<=SYSDATE@! AND "DATE_ONLY">=SYSDATE@!-1)
   4 - access(TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("DATE_TIME"))>=SYSDATE@!-1 AND
              TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("DATE_TIME"))<=SYSDATE@!)

=======================================
date_time between sysdate-1 and sysdate
=======================================

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                     | Name  | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |       |     1 |    21 |    92   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE               |       |     1 |    21 |            |          |
|*  2 |   FILTER                      |       |       |       |            |          |
|*  3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1    |  1442 | 30282 |    92   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_I1 |  4306 |       |    13   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter(SYSDATE@!>=SYSDATE@!-1)
   3 - filter("DATE_TIME"=SYSDATE@!-1)
   4 - access(TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("DATE_TIME"))>=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!-1) AND
              TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("DATE_TIME"))>=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!))

The optimizer has managed to generate extra predicates in both cases by applying transitive closure to the critical constraint to produce queries that can be addressed (with some inefficiencies) through the single index.

Within limits, therefore, I can reduce two indexes to a single index. The strategy isn’t ideal but it may be appropriate in a few special cases. There are several problems that should be considered carefully:

• The date_time column has to be declared not null for this optimization strategy to appear – that’s going to limit its applicability.
• You may have more complex code where the transformation simply can’t be made to appear.
• The introduction of the trunc() function may change the optimizer’s arithmetic in ways that cause plans to change for the worse
• (Most important) The index range scan is always a multiple of 24 hours, with the excess data discarded after you reach the table. If you have lots of time-based queries for short time intervals (e.g. less than 8 hours) then the extra work done may outweigh the benefit of reducing the number of indexes – especially if all the excess table visits turn into randomly scattered single block reads.

Despite these drawbacks you may decide that you have a case where the strategy is “good enough” to help you reduce the workload on your system at some critical times during the day or night.

 

Index Usage – 2

I’ve been a little slow in the follow-up to my previous posting on possibly redundant indexes. Before going into the slightly more complex stuff, there’s another peripheral point (but a very important one) that’s worth raising about how clever the optimizer can be. Here’s some code for 11.2.0.4 to demonstrate the point:

create table t1
nologging
as
with generator as (
	select	--+ materialize
		rownum id 
	from dual 
	connect by 
		level <= 1e4
)
select
	rownum					id,
	trunc(sysdate,'MM') + (rownum-1)/1440	date_time,
	rpad('x',100)				padding
from
	generator	v1,
	generator	v2
where
	rownum <= 1e5
;


alter table t1 
add (
        date_only
	generated always as (trunc(date_time)) virtual 
)
;

begin
	dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
		ownname		 => user,
		tabname		 =>'T1',
		method_opt	 => 'for all columns size 1'
	);
end;
/

create index t1_i1 on t1(date_only) nologging;

So, in a two-step process, I’ve got an indexed virtual column that holds the value of the date_time column truncated to just the date. Would you expect the optimizer to use the index to execute the following query efficiently:

select
        max(id)
from
        t1
where
        date_time between sysdate-1 and sysdate
;

Note that the query references the real date_time column not the virtual column date_only, and it’s not using the expression that defines the index – yet the plan reads as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                             | Name  | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                      |       |     1 |    21 |    86   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE                       |       |     1 |    21 |            |          |
|*  2 |   FILTER                              |       |       |       |            |          |
|*  3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T1    |  1442 | 30282 |    86   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T1_I1 |  4306 |       |    13   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
   2 - filter(SYSDATE@!>=SYSDATE@!-1)
   3 - filter("DATE_TIME"<=SYSDATE@! AND "DATE_TIME">=SYSDATE@!-1)
   4 - access("T1"."DATE_ONLY">=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!-1) AND
              "T1"."DATE_ONLY"<=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!))

It’s a little odd that even though the optimizer in the newer versions of Oracle treats many simple expressions on sysdate as constants it still checks (operation 2) that “sysdate >= sysdate – 1” but perhaps that’s just a case of a piece of generic code that isn’t worth the risk or effort of changing.

The key point, of course, is that Oracle has managed to generate some extra predicates that allow it to use the “wrong” index to get a first approximation of the result set fairly efficiently, and then used the original predicate to reduce the approximation down to the correct result set.

If you want a quick sanity check on the access predicates used for operation 4:

• If date_time >= sysdate-1, then trunc(date_time) >= trunc(sysdate-1)
• If date_time <= sysdate, then trunc(date_time) <= trunc(sysdate)

This style of predicate manipulation also works numeric data types, but I think its greatest benefit (or convenience) is likely to come from date data types where the data has been created with a time component but there are frequent “date-only” queries. The days of creating two indexes as a workaround for handling generated code that wants to deal with both date_time and trunc(date_time) predicates should be numbered.

Footnote:

This enhancement probably appeared in 11.2.0.2, and I first saw it described in October 2013 in this blog note by Mohamed Houri; but 12c offers a delightful little enhancement – here’s what my table looks like in the 12c version of the code:

SQL> desc t1
 Name                          Null?    Type
 ----------------------------- -------- --------------------
 ID                                     NUMBER
 DATE_TIME                              DATE
 PADDING                                VARCHAR2(100)

SQL> 

Where’s the virtual column ? The 12c version of my code had a slightly different definition for it:

alter table t1  
add (
        date_only
        invisible
        generated always as (trunc(date_time)) virtual
)
;

The transformation still works even when the virtual column is invisible. So (subject to searching for anomalies, boundary conditions and bugs) it looks as if you can change the table definition, and get the benefits of two indexes for the price of one without the application realising that anything has changed.

Easy – Oops.

A question came up on OTN today asking for suggestions on how to enforce uniqueness on a pair of columns only when the second column was not null. There’s an easy and obvious solution – but I decided to clone the OP’s example and check that I’d typed my definition up before posting it; and the result came as a bit of a surprise. Here’s a demo script (not using the OP’s table):

create table t1  
(  
	col1	int not null,
	col2	varchar2(1)
);  

create unique index t1_i1 on t1( 
--	case col2 when null then cast(null as int) else col1 end,
--	case when col2 is null then cast(null as int) else col1 end,
	case when col2 is not null then col1 end,
	col2
)
;

insert into t1 values(1,null);
insert into t1 values(1,null);
insert into t1 values(1,'x');
insert into t1 values(1,'y');
insert into t1 values(1,'y');

commit;

column ind1_is   format a5
column ind1_when format 9999

set null N/A

select
	case when col2 is null then cast (null as int) else col1 end	ind1_is,
	case col2 when null then cast (null as int)  else col1 end	ind1_when
from 
	t1
;

The strategy is simple, you create a unique function-based index with two columns; the first column of the index id defined to show the first column of the table if the second column of the table is not null, the second column of the index is simply the second column of the table. So if the second column of the table is null, both columns in the index are null and there is no entry in the index; but if the second column of the table is not null then the index copies both columns from the table and a uniqueness test applies.

Based on the requirement and definition you would expect the first 4 of my insert statements to succeed and the last one to fail. The index will then have two entries, corresponding to my 3rd and 4th insertions.

I’ve actually shown three ways to use the case statement to produce the first column of the index. The last version is the cleanest, but the first option is the one I first thought of – it’s virtually a literal translation the original requirement. The trouble is, with my first definition the index acquired an entry it should not have got, and the second insert raised a “duplicate key” error; the error didn’t appear when I switched the syntax of the case statement to the second version.

That’s why the closing query of the demo is there – when you run it the two values reported should be the same as each other for all four rows in the table – but they’re not. This is what I got on 11.2.0.4:

IND1_IS IND1_WHEN
------- ---------
N/A             1
N/A             1
      1         1
      1         1

I’m glad I did a quick test before suggesting my original answer.

Anyone who has other versions of Oracle available is welcome to repeat the test and report back which versions they finding working correctly (or not).

Update

It’s not a bug (see note 2 below from Jason Bucata), it’s expected behaviour.

 

Tweaking

The following question came up on OTN recently:

Which one gives better performance? Could please explain.

1) nvl( my_column, ‘N’) <> ‘Y’

2) nvl( my_column, ‘N’) = ‘N’

It’s a question that can lead to a good 20 minute discussion – if you were in some sort of development environment and had a fairly free hand to do whatever you wanted.

The most direct answer is that you could expect the performance to be the same whichever option you chose – but the results might be different, of course, unless you had a constraint on my_column that ensured that it would hold only null, ‘Y’, or ‘N’.  (Reminder:  the constraint check (my_column in (‘Y’,’N’) will allow nulls in the column).

On the other hand, if you create a function-based index on nvl(my_column,’N’) then the second option would give the optimizer the opportunity to use the index – which could make it the more efficient option if a sufficiently small quantity of the data from a large table matched the predicate. Of course in this case you would need a histogram on the hidden column definition supporting the index so that the optimizer could detect the data skew.

But if a function-based index is a step in the right direction it’s worth thinking about how to pick the best function-based index.

create index t1_i1 on t1(case my_column when 'Y' then null else 'N' end);

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

select * from t1 where case my_column when 'Y' then null else 'N' end = 'N';

Provided you can change the queries that use the original predicate, you can create a function-based index that is the smallest possible index to assist your query, and you won’t need a histogram to allow the optimizer to get the correct cardinality since there will be just one distinct value in the index (and the underlying column).

It’s possible to go a little further – what if the typical query that started this discussion was really something like:

select  *
from    t1
where   nvl(my_column, 'N') = 'N'
and     other_column = {some value}

If the nvl() predicate always returned a small fraction of the data we might engineer an index to handle the requirement of the entire where clause:

create index t1_i2 on t1(case my_column when 'Y' then null else other_column end);
execute dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'t1',method_opt=>'for all hidden columns size 254');

In this case you might need a histogram on the hidden column definition supporting the index, which is why I’ve changed my method_opt. We’ve constructed an index that is the smallest possible index that will satisfy the query as precisely as possible while giving the optimizer the best chance of producing accurate cardinality estimates. [Update: until the appearance of Kirill’s comment (#1) I forgot to point out that once again you have to change the original SQL from using the nvl() expression to using a case expression that matches the index.]

Footnote

It would be easy to fall into the trap of playing around with this type of tweaking every time you hit a performance problem. Bear in mind, though, that even indexes which are as small and accurately targeted as possible can introduce various types of overhead (contention, cost of gathering stats, instability of histogram collection); so always try to think through the potential costs as well as the benefits of such an approach – is it really worth the effort.

It’s also worth noting that things don’t always work the way you expect.

Finally, of course, you might choose to create “proper” virtual columns in 11g so that you can refer to them by name, rather than handling them indirectly as you have to when they are “undocumented” hidden columns generated by function-based indexes.

 

Min/Max

One of my most-repeated observations about trouble-shooting Oracle is that things break when you start combining features. Here’s an example that demonstrates the point.

It’s possible to create “descending” indexes – or indexes with descending columns, as I prefer to call them, and there’s a special “min/max range scan” optimizer operation for a particular kind of index usage – demonstrated in the following code fragment (running under 11.2.0.4, and reporting the rowsource execution statistics):

Auto Sample Size

In the past I have enthused mightily about the benefits of the approximate NDV mechanism and the benefit of using auto_sample_size to collect statistics in 11g; however, as so often happens with Oracle features, there’s a down-side or boundary condition, or edge case. I’ve already picked this up once as an addendum to an earlier blog note on virtual stats, which linked to an article on OTN describing how the time taken to collect stats on a table increased dramatically after the addition of an index – where the index had this definition:

create bitmap index i_s_rmp_eval_csc_msg_actions on
    s_rmp_evaluation_csc_message (
        decode(instr(xml_message_text,' '),0,0,1)
    )
;

As you might guess from the column name, this is an index based on an XML column, which is stored as a CLOB.

In a similar vein, I showed you a few days ago an old example I had of indexing a CLOB column with a call to dbms_lob.getlength(). Both index examples suffer from the same problem – to support the index Oracle creates a hidden (virtual) column on the table that can be used to hold statistics about the values of the function; actual calculated values for the function call are stored in the index but not on the table itself – but it’s important that the optimizer has the statistics about the non-existent column values.

FBI Skip Scan

A recent posting on the OTN database forum highlighted a bug (or defect, or limitation) in the way that the optimizer handles index skip scans with “function-based” indexes – it doesn’t do them. The defect has probably been around for a long time and demonstrates a common problem with testing Oracle – it’s very easy for errors in the slightly unusual cases to be missed; it also demonstrates a general principle that it can take some time for a (small) new feature to be applied consistently across the board.

The index definitions in the original posting included expressions like substr(nls_lower(colX), 1, 25), and it’s possible for all sorts of unexpected effects to appear when your code starts running into NLS  settings, so I’ve created a much simpler example. Here’s my table definition, with three index definitions:

Indexing LOBs

Many years ago, possibly when most sites were still using Oracle 8i, a possible solution to a particular customer problem was to create a function-based index on a CLOB column using the dbms_lob.getlength() function call. I can’t find the notes explaining why this was necessary (I usually have some sort of clue – such as the client name – in the script, but in this case all I had was a comment that “the manuals say you can’t do this, but it works provided you wrap the dbms_lob call inside a deterministic function”).

I never worked out why the dbms_lob.getlength() function wasn’t declared as deterministic – especially since it came complete with a most restrictive restricts_references pragma – so I had just assumed there was probably some good reason based on strange side effects when national language charactersets came into play. But here’s a little detail I noticed recently about the dbms_lob.getlength() function: it became deterministic in 11g, so if the client decided to implement my suggestion (which included the usual sorts of warnings) it’s now legal !

Footnote – the length() function has been deterministic and usable with LOBs for a long time, certainly since late 9i, but in 8i length(lob_col) will produce Oracle error “ORA-00932: inconsistent datatypes”

32K Columns

Oracle 12c (release 1) has increased the maximum length of character-based columns to 32K bytes – don’t get too excited, they’re stored out of line (so similar in overheads to LOBs) and need some modification to the parameter file and data dictionary (including a step that starts the database in upgrade mode) before you can use them.

Richard Foote has a pair of articles on indexing such columns:

• Part 1
• Part 2

Be cautious about enabling this option and test carefully – there are going to be a number of side effects and some of them may require a significant investment in time to resolve. The first one that came to my mind was that if you’ve created a function-based index on a pl/sql function that returns a varchar2() type and haven’t explicitly created the index on a substr() of the return value then the data type of the function’s return value will change from the current default of varchar2(4000) to varchar2(32767) – which means the index will become invalid and can’t be rebuilt or recreated.

Obviously you can redefine the index to include an explicit substr() call – but then you have to find all the code that was supposed to use the index and modify it accordingly.

Footnote: don’t forget that everything may change with the arrival of 12.2.

 

FBI decode

It probably won’t surprise many people to hear me say that the decode() function can be a bit of a nuisance; and I’ll bet that quite a lot of people have had trouble occasionally trying to get function-based indexes that use this function to behave properly. So (to put it all together and support the general directives that case is probably a better choice than decode() and that the cast() operator is an important thing to learn) here’s an example of how function-based indexes don’t always allow you to work around bad design/code. (Note: this is a model of a problem I picked up at a client site, stripped to a minimum – you have to pretend that I’m not allowed to fix the problem by changing code).

Blog advert

Just a quick note to say that I found a blog over the weekend with a number of interesting posts, so I thought I’d pass it on: http://www.bobbydurrettdba.com/

There’s a really cute example (complete with test case) of an optimizer bug (possibly only in 11.1)  in the December archive: http://www.bobbydurrettdba.com/2012/12/04/index-causes-poor-performance-in-query-that-doesnt-use-it/