Performance Tuning :: Index Usage In Order By Clause On Nullable Column

Jan 28, 2011

I came across situation where a Nullable column is not using index for 'order by' clause. I added Not Null condition in the 'where' condition but it wasn't useful. I don't wanted to make composite index with not nullable column or with constant or modify column to 'Not Null'

So I carried out test cases and during which I found that in one case the sql statement does 'fast full scan' for data access but does not use index for 'order by' sorting

here are the steps

Initially I kept the column Nullable

SQL> create sequence s5;
Sequence created.

SQL> create table t5 as select s5.nextval id,a.* from dba_objects a where rownum<1001;
Table created.

SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';

SQL> create index i5 on t5(id);
Index created.

SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'T5',cascade=>true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
exit

SQL> alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever, level 12';

select *
from
t5 where id is not null order by id

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.00 0 16 0 1000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=4771 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1157 us)

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 49.49 49.72
********************************************************************************

select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t where id is not null order by id

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=5167 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3141 us)(object id 4673065)

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 69 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 69 22.89 28.04

Now I modified the 'id' column to Not Null

SQL> alter table t5 modify id not null;

SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';

COLUMN_NAME N
------------------------------ -
ID N
OWNER Y
OBJECT_NAME Y
SUBOBJECT_NAME Y
OBJECT_ID Y
DATA_OBJECT_ID Y
OBJECT_TYPE Y
CREATED Y
LAST_DDL_TIME Y
TIMESTAMP Y
STATUS Y
TEMPORARY Y
GENERATED Y
SECONDARY Y

14 rows selected.

select *
from
t5 order by id

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.01 0 29 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.01 0 45 0 1000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=2398 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1152 us)

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 37.74 37.91
********************************************************************************

select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t order by id

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=4166 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3142 us)(object id 4673065)

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 8.28 8.45

select id
from
t5 order by id

call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000

Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5

Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1342 us)
1000 INDEX FAST FULL SCAN I5 (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1093 us)(object id 4673065)

Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 1.88 1.89

Questions are

1) Why adding 'where id is not null wasn't enough for the index to get used in 'order by'?
2) While we got 'fast full scan' why index wasn't used for 'order by' clause?
3) Do we need the indexed column in where clause for being used in 'order by clause' too?
4) Do we need 'order by' clause if we are selecting only the indexed column with sequence generated values?

View 5 Replies


ADVERTISEMENT

Performance Tuning :: Materialized View With Nullable Column

Dec 29, 2011

I have an issue in materialized view which has got one of the null able column and query on this column taking approximately 2 mins where as other indexed columns takes less than 10 sec.

Here is the summary

SQL> Select Count (1), Count (VAT_NO) From Mv_customer;

COUNT(1) COUNT(VAT_NO)
---------------------------------
2893561 1516

If an index is created on VAT_NO will that improve the performance. What kind of index can be created considering very less number of records has got VAT_NO

View 4 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Tune Order By Clause Without Changing Sort Area

May 1, 2008

How to avoid sort operation by an order by clause without changing the sort area size.what hints or changes should be done in query so that order by clause work faster.

View 10 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How Length Of Column Width Effects Index Performance

Sep 30, 2010

How the length of column width effects index performance?

For example if i had IOT table emp_iot with columns:
(id number,
job varchar2(20),
time date,
plan number)

Table key consist of(id, job, time)

Column JOB has fixed list of distinct values ('ANALYST', 'NIGHT_WORKED', etc...).

What performance increase i could expect if in column "job" i would store not names but concrete numbers identifying job names.
For e.g. i would store "1" instead 'ANALYST' and "2" instead 'NIGHT_WORKED'.

View 24 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Derived Column Index

Apr 2, 2011

here is my query

SELECT CURRENTSTEP
FROM (SELECT ( WFENTRY.NAME
|| ','
|| CURRENTSTEP.STEP_ID
) AS CURRENTSTEP,
(CASE
WHEN WFENTRY.NAME IN

[Code]...

in this query I am concatenating tow columns , I use this query as a sub query in my other queries and filter the results with and CURRENTSTEP = ?

here is how I use it

select
sys_audit_id
from
( SELECT
*
FROM
(SELECT
F.FINDING_NUMBER,

[Code]....

I saw adding this as a subquery with the filter and CURRENTSTEP = ? is slowing my query very much , as this is a derived column i cannot add index then how to improve performance for this subquery ?

View 3 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Index Creation On Text Column?

Oct 10, 2013

We have a table called address and having the address fields and city ,state etc. The table will store huge amount of data .We need to query on the table. I would like to know how can we fasten the query and improve the performance of the query by creating index on these columns...Query is given below . note that the nullable columns can have data

SELECT *
FROM address
WHERE address1 = 'a'

[Code]....

View 9 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Index 15 Columns When Cannot Predict Columns Will Be Used In Where Clause?

Apr 4, 2011

I am running a fairly busy Oracle 10gR2 DB, one of the tables has about 120 columns and this table receives on average 1500 insertions per second. The table is partitioned and the partitioning is based on the most important of the two timestamp columns. There are two timestamps, they hold different times.

Out of these 120 columns, about 15 need to be indexed. Out of the 15 two of them are timestamp, at least one of these two timestamp columns is always in the where clause the queries.

Now the challenge is, the queries we run can have any combination of the 13 other columns + one timestamp. In reality the queries never have more than 7 or 8 columns in the where clause but even if we had only 4 columns in the where clause we would still have the same problem.

So if I create one concatenated index for all these columns it will not be very efficient because after the 4th or 5th column the sorting would no longer be very useful and I believe the optimiser would simply not use the rest of the index. So queries that use the leading columns of the index in sequence work well, but if I need to query the 10th column the I have performance issues.

Now, if I create multiple single column indexes oracle will have to work a lot harder to maintain all these indexes and it will create performance issues (I have tried that). Besides, if I have multiple single column indexes the optimiser will do nested loops twice or three times and will hit only the first few columns of the where clause so I think it will kind of be the same as the long concatenated index.

What I am trying to do is exactly what the Bitmap index would do, it would be very good if I could use the AND condition that a Bitmap index uses. This way I could have N number of single column indexes which the optimiser could pick from and serve the query with exactly the ones it needs. But unfortunately using the Bitmap index here is not an option given the large amount of inserts that I get on this table.

I have been looking for alternatives, I have considered creating multiple shorter concatenated indexes but this still would not address the issue since many queries would still not be served properly and therefore would take a very long time to complete.

What I had in mind would be some sort of multidimensional index, I am not even sure if such thing exists. But essentially it would be some sort of index that could serve a query efficiently regardless of the fact that the where clause has the 1st, 3rd and last columns of the index.

So considering how widely used Oracle is and how many super large databases there are out there, this problem must be common.

View 12 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Query Not Hitting Index On Date Column

May 18, 2012

I am working with following select clause:

select distinct S.ID ID
from
ods.hso_Scheduled H,
ods.SO_SCHEDULED S
where
S.insertion_date >= to_date('01-DEC-2011') and S.insertion_date < to_date('01-FEB-2012')
and H.ID=S.ID

Both the involved tables, HSO_SCHEDULED is having 15 million records and SO_SCHEDULED table is having 7 million records.

I have created following indexes on these tables:

Indexes on SO_SCHEDULED:
Index name Column name
SS_IDX1ID, SO_SUB_ITEM__ID
SS_IDX2INSERTION_DATE
SS_IDX3ID, INSERTION_DATE
SS_IDX4ID, SO_SUB_ITEM__ID, INSERTION_DATE
SO_SCHEDULED_ID_PKID

Indexes on HSO_SCHEDULED:

HSS_IDX1ID, SO_SUB_ITEM__ID, LAST_UPDATING_DATE
HSS_IDX2ID, LAST_UPDATING_DATE
HSS_IDX3ID

My problem is despite of having relevant indexes present, my query is not hitting them and hence the performance is very bad.

Explain Plan:

Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 574170360
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time | TQ |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 814K| 38M| | 9574 (1)| 00:02:15 | | | |
| 1 | PX COORDINATOR | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | PX SEND QC (RANDOM) | :TQ10002 | 814K| 38M| | 9574 (1)| 00:02:15 | Q1,02 | P->S | QC (RAND) |
| 3 | HASH UNIQUE | | 814K| 38M| 185M| 9574 (1)| 00:02:15 | Q1,02 | PCWP | |
|* 4 | HASH JOIN | | 2653K| 124M| | 9564 (1)| 00:02:14 | Q1,02 | PCWP | |
| 5 | PX JOIN FILTER CREATE| :BF0000 | 814K| 22M| | 3903 (1)| 00:00:55 | Q1,02 | PCWP | |
| 6 | PX RECEIVE | | 814K| 22M| | 3903 (1)| 00:00:55 | Q1,02 | PCWP | |
| 7 | PX SEND HASH | :TQ10000 | 814K| 22M| | 3903 (1)| 00:00:55 | Q1,00 | P->P | HASH |
| 8 | PX BLOCK ITERATOR | | 814K| 22M| | 3903 (1)| 00:00:55 | Q1,00 | PCWC | |
|* 9 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| SO_SCHEDULED | 814K| 22M| | 3903 (1)| 00:00:55 | Q1,00 | PCWP | |
| 10 | PX RECEIVE | | 14M| 272M| | 5654 (1)| 00:01:20 | Q1,02 | PCWP | |
| 11 | PX SEND HASH | :TQ10001 | 14M| 272M| | 5654 (1)| 00:01:20 | Q1,01 | P->P | HASH |
| 12 | PX JOIN FILTER USE | :BF0000 | 14M| 272M| | 5654 (1)| 00:01:20 | Q1,01 | PCWP | |
| 13 | PX BLOCK ITERATOR | | 14M| 272M| | 5654 (1)| 00:01:20 | Q1,01 | PCWC | |
| 14 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| HSO_SCHEDULED | 14M| 272M| | 5654 (1)| 00:01:20 | Q1,01 | PCWP | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
4 - access("H"."ID"="S"."ID")
9 - filter("S"."INSERTION_DATE">=TO_DATE(' 2011-12-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss') AND
"S"."INSERTION_DATE"<TO_DATE(' 2012-02-01 00:00:00', 'syyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))

View 6 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Order Of Steps In Execution Path And Order Of Predicates In The Plan

Mar 20, 2012

Which step in the following plan is the first step of execution

I reckon it is "TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE"

Is that correct?

In the "Predicate Information (identified by operation id):"

section the predicates - access and filter for the step "TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES" are displayed first

Isn't there any relation between the order of execution steps and the order in which predicates are displayed?

Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 538700484
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | |
| 2 | HASH GROUP BY | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2364 | 14 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2313 | 13 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 5 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2281 | 12 (9)| 00:00:01 |
| 6 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 2255 | 11 (10)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 175 | 6 (17)| 00:00:01 |
|* 8 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 12 | 612 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 9 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES | 43 | 5332 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | | 1 | 2080 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 154 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 103 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE | 1 | 32 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_BBS_1 | 3 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DAILY_CHECK | 1 | 71 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_SEARCH | 1 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 17 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 18 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_IAM_SR_NO | 1 | 26 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 19 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 32 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 20 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

View 3 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: TEMP Usage History

Jul 19, 2010

My stats jobs failed last night with "ORA-01652 :Unable to extend TEMP" error.

Is there any way to check this history data, what other session was using TEMP tablespace extensively ?

View 6 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Query With High Cpu Usage?

Jan 13, 2009

Is there any way to tune the following query using lot of CPU:-select description,time_stamp,user_id from bhi_tracking where description like 'Multilateral:%'The explain plan for this is query is:-

---------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 178K| 6609K| 129K|
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| BHI_TRACKING | 178K| 6609K| 129K|
----------------------------------------------------------------

Bhi_tracking is used for reporting purpose and contain millions of records.Generally we keep one year data in this table and delete the remaining.Can I drop the table after taking export and then import it back or can i truncatethe table and then insert the rows into it to enhancethe performance.

View 14 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Determine Memory Usage For A Function

Jul 24, 2013

determine if a function is worth pinning in memory? I want to come up with a percentage, implying that if the function is already im memory 80%+ of the time then it is not worth it.

View 5 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Local Index Versus Global Index On Partitioned Table

Jun 28, 2011

I have a huge table (about 60 gb) partition over range. The index on this table is global index created on 4 columns together. I have a query which is running very slowly. The explain plan is showing the use of this global index.Explain plan is not showing pstart and pend because the index is global.

View 6 Replies View Related

PL/SQL :: Order By In Union Clause In Date Column

Nov 3, 2012

Oracle version : 11.2.0.2 Linux EL6 server

I have a query like below:

select col1, col2, col3, col4
from tab1, tab2, tab3
where conditions
union

[Code]...

Now, the col4 is a date column and I have to order by the entire result sets on it. I know I can do it by (order by col4) or by (order by 4) at the end of the entire query.

But the problem is that, the output is coming in dd-Mon-yyyy (i.e 31-Nov-2012).

I want every output in dd/mm/yyyy format so I need to use to_char function.

But in that case, I cant use the order by clause, because in that case it is getting arranged by character i.e by 1,2,3,4,5 like this.

View 3 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Oracle 11g High Memory Usage Dbw0 And Dbw1

Jul 31, 2012

We are using the 11g AMM feature and Memory_Target set to 96GB and total RAM on the Server is 128GB Now the top and free shows up only 200MB memory free on the system.

There are 2 process dbw0 and dbw1 which consumes the top memory and this is 30GB per dbw.

Why is the dbw process taking up so much memory when there is not much load on the database.

View 4 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Determine System Memory Usage By Oracle Processes

Jun 20, 2012

we have 96GB Memory on the UNIX server and 85% of its usage shows oracle processes I want to determine which Oracle processes are taking most of the memory

SGA is around 36G
SGA_TARGET is 40G
PGA is around 4G

the total of around 40-45 GB of usage is understandable but what other oracle process are chewing up the remaining 30-40 GB on the server is not known

load averages: 7.35, 6.46, 6.15; up 248+11:33:21 12:25:03
2202 processes: 2196 sleeping, 1 zombie, 5 on cpu
CPU states: 83.8% idle, 10.5% user, 5.8% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap
Memory: 96G phys mem, 15G free mem, 128G total swap, 128G free swap

PID USERNAME LWP PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND
21720 oracle 258 0 0 40G 40G cpu/48 215:28 2.04% oracle
10709 oracle 1 0 2 1816K 1448K cpu/9 0:02 0.90% res_conf_email_
[code]......

View 6 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Index With NVL / Query Is No Longer Using Index

Nov 19, 2010

I have a query which had a join:

a.c1=b.c1 and a.c2=@var

where @var is user supplied input at runtime...We had a index on a.c2 . The CBO would use this index to generate an opitimised query plan.We found some records from table "b" were dropping due to inner join. So we made a change in join. It'd be like

a.c1(+)=b.c1 and nvl(a.c2,@var)=@var

This query is no longer using the index, instead its doing a full table scan causing the query to slowdown.I have tried creating index on nvl(a.c2,'31-dec-9999')

But the CBO won't use it.Anyway to create index on this col so that full table scan can be avoided?

View 2 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Force Index If Table Not Using Index?

Aug 9, 2013

How to force an index if the table not using the index?

View 10 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: DECODE In WHERE CLAUSE Performance?

Oct 17, 2011

The following query gets input parameter from the Front End application, which User queries to get Reports.There are many drop down boxes like LOB, FAMILY, BRAND etc., The user may or may not select values from drop down boxes.

If the user select any one or more values ( against each drop down box) it has to fetch all matching values from DB. If the user does'nt select any values it has to fetch all the records, in this case application will send a value 'DEFAULT' (which is not a value in DB ) so that the DB will fetch all the records.

For getting this I wrote a query like below using DECODE, which colleague suggested that will hamper performance.From the below query all the variables V_ are defined in procedure which gets the values selected by user as a comma separated string here V_SELLOB and LOB_DESC is column in DB.

DECODE (V_SELLOB, 'DEFAULT', V_SELLOB, LOB_DESC) IN
OPEN v_refcursor FOR
SELECT /*+ FULL(a) PARALLEL(a, 5) */
*
FROM items a
WHERE a.sku_status = 'A'

[code]...

View 9 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Change Execution Order

May 2, 2012

Performance issues with the below mentioned sql.After gone through execution plan we have found out the reason but we couldn't able to change the execution plan the way we want.

If we could able to join

HRMGR.HR_EXPANDED_BOOK table with MISBOMGR.ibm_client_mgr7_empid, MISBOMGR.ibm_client_mgr6_empid at earlier stage means before HRMGR.HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP then my issue will be solved but somehow optimizer is not considering that path. Even i have added push_subq hint which will push sub queries to execute at earlier stage but no use. Why push_subq hint is not working in this scenario and what can be the other alternative to change the driving path.

Query :-

select /*+ push_subq */CEMP.EMP_ID,
CEMP.EMP_STATUS_CD,
EMP_STATUS_DESC,
MGR_6_EMP_ID,
MGR_7_EMP_ID
FROM
[code]........

Execution plan :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | Inst |IN-OUT|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 16958 | 927K| 12008 (2)| 00:02:25 | | |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | | | |
| 2 | MERGE JOIN OUTER | | 173K| 9511K| 12008 (2)| 00:02:25 | | |
| 3 | REMOTE | HR_EXPANDED_BOOK | 173K| 7303K| 12005 (2)| 00:02:25 | INFODB | R->S |
|* 4 | SORT JOIN | | 11 | 143 | 3 (34)| 00:00:01 | | |
| 5 | REMOTE | HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP | 11 | 143 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | INFODB | R->S |
|* 6 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID | 1 | 8 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
|* 7 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID | 1 | 8 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ USE_HASH ("IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID") */ 0 FROM
"MISBOMGR"."IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID" "IBM_CLIENT_MGR7_EMPID" WHERE "MGR_7_EMP_ID"=:B1) OR EXISTS
(SELECT 0 FROM "MISBOMGR"."IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID" "IBM_CLIENT_MGR6_EMPID" WHERE "MGR_6_EMP_ID"=:B2))
4 - access("CEMP"."EMP_STATUS_CD"="EMPLU"."EMP_STATUS_CD"(+))
filter("CEMP"."EMP_STATUS_CD"="EMPLU"."EMP_STATUS_CD"(+))
6 - filter("MGR_7_EMP_ID"=:B1)
7 - filter("MGR_6_EMP_ID"=:B1)

Remote SQL Information (identified by operation id):
----------------------------------------------------
3 - SELECT "EMP_ID","EMP_STATUS_CD","MGR_6_EMP_ID","MGR_7_EMP_ID" FROM
"HRMGR"."HR_EXPANDED_BOOK" "SYS_ALIAS_2" WHERE "EMP_STATUS_CD"='P' (accessing 'INFODB' )
5 - SELECT "EMP_STATUS_CD","EMP_STATUS_DESC" FROM "HRMGR"."HR_EMP_STATUS_LOOKUP" "EMPLU"
(accessing 'INFODB' )

View 3 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Against Count With Group By Clause

Mar 31, 2012

This query is taking 7 hours to execute as I am retrieving data from history table dept_hist.

select count(distinct empid), e.group_nm, d.date,
from emp e, dept_hist d
where e.deptno = d.deptno
and e.up_ts > sysdate -30

[Code]...

Its taking 7 hours to execute.restructing this query.

View 4 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Disable Db_block_buffers Parameters In Order To Enable Sga_target?

Jun 15, 2012

What value should i set for sga_target in my oracle 10g database?

Currently -
sga_max_size = 32GB
pga_aggregate_target = 6GB
RAM on server = 64 GB

I'll need to disable db_block_buffers parameters in order to enable sga_target. right?

View 8 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Avoid Repeat Where Clause In Oracle Sql

Jun 4, 2013

avoid duplication of **where** clause in my query.

In my below query, **JOIN** condition is same for both the queries and **WHERE** condition also same except this clause "and code.code_name="transaction_1" In **IF ** condition only credit and debit is swapped on both queries, due to this **Credit and Debit** and this where clause "and code.code_name="transaction_1" I am duplicating the query. avoid this duplication. I am using oracle 11g

SELECT day AS business_date,
SUM(amount) AS AMOUNT,
type_amnt AS amount_type,

[Code]....

View 2 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Overcome Rownum Clause From Select

Dec 27, 2010

high number of executions of specific types of queries which is using only rownum clause. For exam.

select ani, rowid from tbl_smschat_upuor where rownum<=:"SYS_B_0";

DB is having high number of executions of these type of queries and these when I m checking the execution plan for the same type of queries it is accessing the full table scan.

======================execution plan for above query
1000 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 91289622
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[code]....

View 3 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Query Using Row Num In Where Clause With Millions Of Records

Dec 8, 2010

There is a table in Database with millions of records and a query --- Select rowid, ANI, DNIS, message from tbl_sms_talkies where rownum<=:"SYS_B_0" ---- using the high CPU and also this query having high number of executions.

View 10 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Full Table Scan - Query Without Where Clause?

Jul 11, 2013

Below query is degrading the performance of database. As we know that, without where clause, query do full table scan.Now, it is written to generate the sequence no.

SQL> explain plan for
2 SELECT NVL(MAX(P.NUM_SERIAL_NO), 0) + 1 FROM CNFGTR_IRDA_ENVELOPE_DTLS P
3 /
Explained.
SQL> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display());
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3345343365
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[code].....

Index is not created on the column.

View 6 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: Pass 4000 - 5000 Parameter In IN Clause?

Mar 2, 2011

In my below query example , i have to pass more than 4000-5000 paramter in "a1.num" in below query. what is the best way to handle this, also if I pass more than 2000 paramter , the query takes a long time to execute. How can we solve the performance issue as well how I can pass more parameter.

SELECT c1, c2,
TO_CHAR (c3, 'HH24:MI'),
c4,
c5,

[code]...

View 12 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: SQL Not Using Index From Application?

Jun 6, 2013

We have a DELETE statement when coming from application is not using index but when run from Toad or SQLplus as same user uses index. Explain plan also shows using index.I did a query on v$sql below is the output of the query( I have attached the same as a txt file). All the stats are up to date and confirmed from the developer the variable B1 is using the same datatype as column MAXMKY.

SQL_TEXTSQL_ID DISK_READSOPTIMIZER_HASH_VALUE
DELETE LOTA WHERE MAXMKY=:B1 2g2prrp3z56ah19,099,1891,846,735,884
DELETE LOTA WHERE MAXMKY=:B1 2g2prrp3z56ah0 1,846,735,884
OPTIMIZER_COST HASH_VALUEPLAN_HASH_VALUE MODULEPARSING_SCHEMA_NAME

[code].....

View 9 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: STOPKEY And Index Use

Nov 6, 2010

I am working on a query for a feedback response system which is going to be targeted at the common case when the user only want the most recent 10-20 rows in the feedback table. My though is to create an index on the date column, do a sort in an inner query and rownum <= in an outer query. This works as I expect when I am only querying the main table (lookup by index with a stop key), but when I start joining the main table to attribute tables I end up with a full table scan of the main table with the stop key applied after all the joins are completed, the index is nowhere to be found.

CREATE TABLE attr1_tbl(attr1_id NUMBER NOT NULL, attr1 VARCHAR2(10) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT attr1_pk PRIMARY KEY (attr1_id));
CREATE TABLE attr2_tbl(attr2_id NUMBER NOT NULL, attr2 VARCHAR2(10) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT attr2_pk PRIMARY KEY (attr2_id));
CREATE TABLE attr3_tbl(attr3_id NUMBER NOT NULL, attr3 VARCHAR2(10) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT attr3_pk PRIMARY KEY (attr3_id));
[code]....

One thing I noticed was that when no data is selected from the attribute tables, even if they are joined in the query, the CBO throws them out of the plan and only accesses the main table. With the foreign keys this makes sense and really just disqualified my first thought that maybe I was missing a foreign key or not null constraint somewhere.

I also added the cardinality hint to overcome the chance that in my test case there was so little data that index access is not worth it.

View 15 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning :: How To Create Index

Mar 30, 2013

I am going through this scenario:

* 35 | ID TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROW | S_ORG_EXT | 3064K| 2472M| | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 36 | INDEX FULL SCAN | S_ORG_EXT_U1 | 14 | | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
35 - filter("T2"."ACCNT_FLG"<>'N' AND ("T2"."INT_ORG_FLG"<>'Y' OR "T2"."PRTNR_FLG"<>'N'))

This unselective index scan on step 36 of the explain is returning 14 rows but optimizer is selecting 3064 K rows from the table .

I tried creating combined index on all 3 columns mentioned in the predicates for 35th step , but that is not utilized .

how to index this whole expression ::--

(ACCNT_FLG<>'N' AND (INT_ORG_FLG<>'Y' OR PRTNR_FLG<>'N'))

Something like CREATE INDEX XYZ on table((ACCNT_FLG<>'N' AND (INT_ORG_FLG<>'Y' OR PRTNR_FLG<>'N')) compute statistics ;

View 3 Replies View Related







Copyrights 2005-15 www.BigResource.com, All rights reserved