Here’s a question that came to mind while reading a recent question on the OTN database forum. It’s a question to which I don’t know the answer and, at present, I don’t really want to bother modelling at present – although if I were on a customer site and this looked like a likely explanation for a performance anomaly it’s the sort of thing I would create a model for.
Here is a recording of a session I did a while ago, covering how to understand the essentials of Oracle Parallel Execution and how to read the corresponding execution plans.
Prompted by a recent OTN posting I’ve dug out from my library the following demonstration of an anomalty with the parallel_index() hint. This note is a warning about how little we understand hints and what they’re supposed to mean, and how we can be caught out by an upgrade. We’ll start with a data set which, to match a comment made in the origina posting rather than being a necessity for the demonstration, has an index that I’ve manipulated to be larger than the underlying table:
A new version 4.23 of the XPLAN_ASH utility is available for download.
This version comes only with minor changes, see the change log below.
Here are the notes from the change log:
- Finally corrected the very old and wrong description of "wait times" in the script comments, where it was talking about "in-flight" wait events but that is not correct. ASH performs a "fix-up" of the last 255 samples or so and updates them with the time waited, so these wait events are not "in-flight"
- Removed some of the clean up code added in 4.22 to the beginning of the script, because it doesn't really help much but spooled script output always contained these error messages about non-existent column definitions being cleared
Here’s a surprising (to me) execution plan from 220.127.116.11 – parallel execution to find one row in a table using a unique scan of a unique index – produced by running the following script (data creation SQL to follow):
My favourite format options for dbms_xplan.display_cursor().
This is another of those posts where I tell you about something that I’ve frequently mentioned but never documented explicitly as a good (or, at least, convenient) idea. It also another example of how easy it is to tell half the story most of the time when someone asks a “simple” question.
The following is probably only relevant for customers that run Oracle on big servers with lots of cores in single instance mode (this specific problem here doesn't reproduce in a RAC environment, see below for an explanation why), like one of my clients that makes use of the Exadata Xn-8 servers, for example a X4-8 with 120 cores / 240 CPUs per node (but also reproduced on older and smaller boxes with 64 cores / 128 CPUs per node).
A recent posting on OTN presented a performance anomaly when comparing a parallel “insert /*+ append */” with a parallel “create table as select”. The CTAS statement took about 4 minutes, the insert about 45 minutes. Since the process of getting the data into the data blocks would be the same in both cases something was clearly not working properly. Following Occam’s razor, the first check had to be the execution plans – when two statements that “ought” to do the same amount of work take very different times it’s probably something to do with the execution plans – so here are the two statements with their plans:
First the insert, which took 45 minutes:
As mentioned in the first and second part of this instalment the different available distribution methods of the new parallel FILTER are selected automatically by the optimizer - in this last post of this series I want to focus on that optimizer behaviour.It looks like there are two new optimizer related parameters that control the behaviour of the new feature: "_px_filter_parallelized" is the overall switch to enable/disable the new parallel filter capability - and defaults to "true" in 12c, and "_px_filter_skew_handling" influences how the optimizer determines the distribution methods - the parameter naming suggests that it somehow has to do with some kind of "skew" - note that the internal parameter that handles the new
A new version 4.22 of the XPLAN_ASH utility is available for download.
This version primarily addresses an issue with 12c - if the HIST mode got used to pull ASH information from AWR in 12c it turned out that Oracle forgot to add the new "DELTA_READ_MEM_BYTES" columns to DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY - although it got officially added to V$ACTIVE_SESSION_HISTORY in 12c. So now I had to implement several additional if/then/else constructs to the script to handle this inconsistency. It's the first time that the HIST view doesn't seem to reflect all columns from the V$ view - very likely an oversight rather than by design I assume.