Consistent Reads

Here’s a quick demo to make a point about consistent reads (prompted by a question on the Oracle-L mailing list):

SQL> drop table t1;

Table dropped.

SQL> create table t1 (n1 number);

Table created.

SQL> insert into t1  values(0);

1 row created.

SQL> begin
  2  for i in 1..1000 loop
  3  update t1 set n1 = i;
  4  end loop;
  5  end;
  6  /

PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.

Note that I haven’t issued a commit in this session, and all I’ve got is a single row in the table (and because it’s my usual demo setup of locally managed tablespaces with uniform extents of 1MB using freelist management I know that that one row is in the first available block of the table).

How much work is a second session going to do to scan that table ?

SQL> alter system flush buffer_cache;
SQL> execute snap_my_stats.start_snap
SQL> select * from t1;
SQL> set serveroutput on size 1000000 format wrapped
SQL> execute snap_my_stats.end_snap
---------------------------------
Session stats - 18-Apr 11:33:01
Interval:-  2 seconds
---------------------------------
Name                                                                     Value
----                                                                     -----
session logical reads                                                      967
consistent gets                                                            967
consistent gets from cache                                                 967
consistent gets - examination                                              964
consistent changes                                                       1,001
CR blocks created                                                            1
data blocks consistent reads - undo records applied                      1,001
IMU CR rollbacks                                                            41

The snap_my_stats package is similar in concept to Tom Kyte’s “runstats” or Tanel Poder’s “snapper” program to capture changes in values in the dynamic performance views over short time periods. In this case I’ve deleted all but a few of the larger changes, and a couple of small changes.

The figure that stands out (probably) is the “session logical reads” – we’ve done 967 logical I/Os to scan a tables of just one block. The reason for this is that we’ve created a read-consistent copy of that one block (“CR blocks created” = 1), and it has taken a lot of work to create that copy. We’ve had to apply 1,001 undo records (“data blocks consistent reads – undo records applied” = 1001).

Most of those undo records come from individual accesses (which are of the cheaper “consistent gets – examination” type that only need a single get on the “cache buffers chains” latch) to undo blocks, following the “UBA (undo block address)” pointer in the relevant ITL entry of the table block, but since this is a 10g database the last few undo records come out of the “In-memory Undo” of the other session. Basically the cloning operation is something like this:

1. Get current block
2. Notice uncommitted transaction
3. Clone current block – then ignore current block
4. Get Undo block indicated by uncommitted ITL and apply undo change vector
5. Repeat step four – 1,000 times
6. Block is now clear of all uncommitted transactions
7. There are no committed transactions with a commit SCN later than the start of query
8. Display contents of block

It is an interesting point that as the first session created undo records it would pin and fill undo blocks – so would only do a few current gets (one for each block) on the undo blocks it was using. As another process reverses out the changes in a CR clone it has to get and release each undo block every time it wants a single undo record … applying undo records introduces far more latch and buffer activity that the original generation of the undo.

Footnote

It’s worth knowing that there are three statistics relating to applying undo records:

transaction tables consistent reads - undo records applied        Estimating "old" commit SCNs during delayed block cleanout
data blocks consistent reads - undo records applied               Creating CR clones
rollback changes - undo records applied                           The result of a real "rollback;"

See this posting on comp.databases.oracle.server for a rough description of transaction table consistent reads; and this elderly posting highlighting a benefit of knowing about rollback changes.

Footnote 2

The second step in the list of actions is: “Notice uncommitted transaction”. It’s probably worth pointing out that another part of the ITL entry holds the transaction id (“xid”) which implicitly identifies the undo segment and transaction table slot in that segment that has been used to hold  the transaction state. The current contents of that slot allow Oracle to determine whether or not (and when, if necessary) the transaction was committed.