When I arrived in Edinburgh for the UKOUG Scotland conference a little while ago Thomas Presslie, one of the organisers and chairman of the committee, asked me if I’d sign up on the “unconference” timetable to give a ten-minute talk on something. So I decided to use Hybrid Columnar Compression to make a general point about choosing and testing features. For those of you who missed this excellent conference, here’s a brief note of what I said.
In a couple of days, on Wednesday, 1st of August, I'll be presenting another free webinar hosted at AllThingsOracle.com.
Although it is called "Oracle Cost-Based Optimizer Advanced Session", don't be mislead by the title.
It is not a truly "advanced" session, but rather I'll try to delve into various topics that I could only mention briefly or had to omit completely during the first webinar on the Cost-Based Optimizer.
In principle it's going to be a selection of the most recurring issues that I come across during my consultancy work:
- I'm going to spend some time on statistics and histograms in particular and what I believe are the most important aspects to understand regarding them
A comment on a recent post of mine pointed me to a question on the OTN SQL and PL/SQL Forum where someone had presented a well-written test case of an odd pattern of behaviour in ANSI SQL. I made a couple of brief comments on the thread, but thought it worth highlighting here as well. The scripts to create the required tables (plus a few extras) are all available on OTN. If you create only the four tables needed and all their indexes you will need about 1.3GB of space.
Have you ever felt that the optimizer was persecuting you by picking plans at random ? Perhaps you’re not paranoid, perhaps it’s part of Oracle Corp’s. master plan to take over the world. If you look closely at the list of hidden parameters you’ll find that some details of this cunning plan have leaked. In 10.1.0.2 Oracle created a new parameter _optimizer_random_plan with the description “optimizer seed value for random plans”. Who knows what terrible effects we may see when the default value of this parameter changes.
So you have that application that cannot be changed but makes use of some weird expressions that screw up the cardinality estimates of the optimizer.
Consider this simple example:
I have a permanent job at the NetCracker‘s System Performance group. Recently I was offered to do one day job outside, on-site in another company, which coincidentally has an office close to NetCracker’s Moscow office. It was an opportunity to apply my skills in a completely different situation which I couldn’t miss; plus I’ve never done public presentations before and this was a good occasion to practice that. Here I’d like to write down some notes how the event went.
Usually the Cost-Based Optimizer arrives at a reasonable execution plan if it gets the estimates regarding cardinality and data scattering / clustering right (if you want to learn more about that why not watch my Webinar available at "AllThingsOracle.com"?).
Here is an example I've recently come across where this wasn't case - the optimizer obviously preferred plans with a significantly higher cost.
The setup to reproduce the issue is simple:
As in – how come a unique (or primary key) index is predicted to return more than one row using a unique scan, for example (running on 10.2.0.3 – but the same type of thing happens on newer versions):
I’m in the process of writing a number of new presentations and in one I’ve included a favorite little graph of mine that I’ve used over the years to help illustrate the relationship between the cost of using an index vs. the cost of using a Full Table Scan (FTS). It’s occurred to me that I’ve never actually [...]
Basically OP has a query with disjuncted (OR-ed) predicate which started to fail after 18.104.22.168 upgrade with ORA-01790: expression must have same datatype as corresponding expression. Here is a test case (I’ve renamed column and table names cause I’ve used to such naming):