Oracle 11.2 introduced a set of new Query Transformations, among others the ability to coalesce subqueries which means that multiple correlated subqueries can be merged into a number of less subqueries.
Timur Akhmadeev already demonstrated the basic principles in a blog entry, but when I was recently involved into supporting a TPC-H benchmark for a particular storage vendor I saw a quite impressive application of this optimization that I would like to share here.
Just like my posting on an index hash, this posting is about a problem as well as being about a hash join. The article has its roots in a question posted on the OTN database forum, where a user has shown us the following execution plan:
Listening to a presentation by Paul Matuszyk on extended statistics yesterday, I learned something that I should have spotted ages ago. Here’s a little demo script to introduce the point:
create table t1 as with generator as ( select --+ materialize rownum id from dual connect by level <= 1000) select rownum id, mod(rownum,100) n1, mod(rownum,100) n2, mod(rownum,100) n3, lpad(rownum,10,'0') small_vc, rpad('x',100) padding from generator v1, generator v2 where rownum <= 1000000; create index t1_i1 on t1(n1, n2, n3); -- collect stats, no histograms.
Here is an odd little bug that was discussed a couple of weeks ago on the OTN forums.
It's about queries on join views by ROWID that fail with "ORA-01410: invalid ROWID" under certain circumstances. The bug can only be reproduced when using the 11.2 code base. In fact the same setup will cause an internal error in 11.1, but 10.2 will return correct results.
It's probably not a very common scenario but it is an interesting example of how features that work fine by themselves can cause problems when used together.
First of all (hopefully) some of you may ask: How is it possible to query from a join view by ROWID, since the view is based on multiple objects and hence doesn't have a simple one-to-one mapping to a ROWID of a single table?
My note on “NOT IN” subqueries is one of the most popular on my blog, staying in the top 5 hits for the last five years – but it’s getting a bit old, so it’s about time I said something new about “NOT IN” – especially since the Null Aware Anti Join has been around such a long time. The example I want to talk about is, as so often, something that came up as a problem on a customer site. Here’s a bit of SQL to model the situation, which is currently running under Oracle 220.127.116.11:
There is a lot more to say about Dynamic Sampling and indexes, and I'll try to cover these basics in my Dynamic Sampling series on AllThingsOracle.com, but two recent discussions on the OTN forums and on Charles Hooper's blog prompted me to publish this blog post.
These discussions revolved around the following issues with Dynamic Sampling and indexes:
1. CREATE INDEX On Empty Table
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 18.104.22.168 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.
Here’s an interesting little conundrum about subquery factoring that hasn’t changed in the recent (22.214.171.124) patch for subquery factoring. It came to me from Jared Still (a fellow member of Oak Table Network) shortly after I’d made some comments about the patch. It’s an example based on the scott/tiger schema – which I’ve extracted from the script $ORACLE_HOME/rdbms/admin/utlsampl.sql (though the relevant scripts may be demobld.sql or scott.sql, depending on version).
As usual I’ve used an 8KB block size, LMT with uniform 1MB extents, and no ASSM to hold the data. I won’t reproduce the code to generate the schema, just the versions of the query with, then without, subquery factoring:
Here’s a model of a little problem I came across recently. It’s something I wrote about many years ago, and I thought I’d seen a note on Metalink explaining that the issue had been addressed; but the problem is still there, even in 126.96.36.199.
We start with a little data set (and it’s my standard setup of 8KB blocks, LMTs, 1MB uniform extents, and no ASSM):
It’s always worth browsing through the list of Oracle’s bug fixes each time a new release or patch comes out because it can give you clues about where to look for problems in your production release – and how to anticipate problems on the upgrade. This article is an example of a fix that I found while while looking at the note for 188.8.131.52 quite recently.