… and thanks for all the fish.
Today I removed myself from the OTN ACE program. This isn’t a reflection on the anything to do with the ACE program – quite the reverse, in fact – it’s because they’re introducing steps to ensure that the ACE Directors can justify their titles. Unfortunately, as anyone who has gone through (e.g.) ISO 9001 certification can tell you, quality assurance tends to translate into paperwork and ticking boxes – and while I can always find time to write up some interesting feature of Oracle I really find it hard to prioritise time for filling in forms.
In the last 4 months I’ve failed to file my monthly list of relevant activities twice, failed to request funding for two of the international conferences I’ve spoken at, and failed to submit claims against the two for which I had requested and received funding approval – so there really was no hope of me being motivated to collect all the extra details that the new regime requires.
So, best wishes to the ACE program – I’m still happy to do what I’ve been doing for the last 25+ years, and I’ll still be meeting up with ACEDs, but I’ll just be wearing one label less as I do it.
This note comes to you prompted by “Noons” in a recent twitter exchange
In response to a complaint by Lukas Eder about having to educate people in 2016 that there is no (performance) difference between count(*) and count(1), Nuno asked me to blog about my claim that this non-difference is a good educational example on at least three different counts.
One thing I won’t count in the list of three is an actual demonstration of the non-difference. I would be surprised if anyone reading this blog needed a proof of the point, but if you’re interested here are a few examples from my past writings – including a couple where the problem becomes subtler and the “non-difference” stops happening:
You’ll notice that the earliest note I’ve published on the blog dates back 8 years or more; and one of the notes references back to a FAQ dated 2001 published on my old website. So why bother making a fuss about this non-difference when it ought to be common knowledge and really isn’t worth the effort.
- There is a huge amount of garbage on the internet about how Oracle works and what you can to do make it work better, so when you demonstrate to someone that claims can be backed up by proof and an idea that they’ve picked up from the internet is wrong it might make them pause for thought the next time they read some unjustified claim that really matters.
- This is a delightfully simple example to use to demonstrate how you can get a little extra information from an execution plan that could help you understand the cause of a performance problem. (I could make the same comment about being able to get something helpful a 10053 trace file, but I won’t claim that as reason number 3)
- Starting even with this extremely simple example that proves one point we can see what happens as we push the boundaries of what we know. Thinking about this problem teaches us how to come up with new questions and modified examples which enhance our understanding of the product.
Frankly I find it extremely tedious how often I have to explain mechanisms that I first described in Practical Oracle 8i – it can be teribly depressing to see how ignorant people can be – but there are always new people starting their careers in Oracle, the manuals they look to are more concerned with describing how to use GUIs than with explaining the technology, and the old garbage on the internet won’t go away. New arrivals have little previous experience for telling the difference between fact and fiction until someone provides the demonstration – so we keep repeating the simple examples.
My favourite quote about the internet came by way of Terry Pratchett (in “The Truth”): A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”
You just have to keep hammering away at the truth.
Updated 27th Nov 2015:
Thanks for all the questions so far – there are plenty of useful topics coming out. At this rate I may have to pass some of these on to the round-table that Tony Hasler.
I’ve made a couple of comments in response, but generally I plan to avoid making any comments until after the panel.
Monday 7th Dec: 11:20 – 12:05
I’ve arranged a panel session on the Cost Based Optimizer for UKOUG Tech 2015, with Maria Colgan, Nigel Bayliss, and Chris Antognini joining me to answer (and maybe argue about) questions from the audience.
To keep things moving along, we aim to have a few questions available before the day and collect a few questions at the door as well as accepting questions from the floor. Martin Widlake and Neil Chandler will be acting as MCs, wielding the microphones, and collecting questions at the door.
So far we have a handful of questions – if you have a question you’d like to raise, add it to the comments below. Even if you can’t attend we may get to your question, and I may be able to write up a summary of questions and answers after the event.
Questions so far:
- Why do queries that have been working fine for months suddenly change to a very slow plan ?
- Are smaller, simpler queries less likely to have a bad plan or change from a good plan to a bad one ?
- What is the down-side of using SQL Profiles to lock in plans ?
- What’s the best way to collect stats on a partitioned table where you add a daily / weekly / monthly partition ?
- Is there a good way to make sure you’ve collected stats for interval partitions when you don’t know they’ve been added ?
- Why do the manuals talk about “prefixed” local indexes (on partitioned tables) as if they have some special effect ?
- Why does a query with literals run faster than one with bind variables? Stats are up to date on all tables concerned.
- For a single table an SQL Plan directive will create extended statistics, but how does the Optimizer resolve SPD for the group by or join queries ?
- I’ve heard that for the group by and join queries, SPD always forces dynamic sampling, is this true ?
- Will SPD with dynamic sampling take precedence over e.g. columns with histograms?
- What is the order of precedence the optimizer uses when resolving table cardinality?
- Will 12.2 allow us to combine column groups and expression as a single extended statistic?