I have a view, below, which does few left outer joins to the same V_MARKET view to get data i need. When I run SQL by itself, ut runs pretty fast, 2-5 seconds. But when I do "select * from V_DEPT_DATA where busines_date = '01-APR-10'", it takes more than 10 minutes to run. I added all needed indexes and still have problems with it .
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW V_DEPT_DATA
AS
SELECT
v1.business_date ,
v1.division ,
v1.department ,
v1.account ,
en.trader ,
[code]........
The scale of the tests that generate the following scenario is not huge right now, only 50 users simulated (or you can think of them as independently running threads if you like). But here is the crunch, the queries generated (from generic transaction layer) are all running against a table that has 600 columns! We can't really control this right now, but this is causing masses amounts of IO (5GB per request) making requests queue for disk availability (which are setup RAID 0/1); its even noticable for as few as 3 threads.
I have rendered the SQL on one occasion to execute in 13 seconds for a single user but this appears short lived as when stats were freshly gathered it went up to the normal 90-120 seconds. I've added the original query to the file, however the findings here along with our DBA (who I trust implicitly) suggest that no amount of editing the query will improve the response times, increasing the PGA/SGA (currently 4/6GB respectively) will only delay the queuing for a bit and compression can work either. In short it looks as though we've hit hardware restrictions already for this particular scenario.
As I can't really explain how my rendered query no longer takes 13 seconds, it's niggling me that we might be missing a trick.So I was hoping for some guidance on possible ways of optimising these type of queries against such wide tables, in other words possibilities that we haven't considered...
I'm converting a SQL Server db to Oracle 10g. So far it's going pretty well. However, I've hit a significant performance snag trying to run queries against the converted view whose SQL is below. In SQL Server it runs pretty quickly, 10-15 secs. This query presently returns about 1.7 million records. code below, and assuming I've done nothing to optimize the database or the objects involved,
BS ------------------ CREATE VIEW DST_TMP_VIEW_ACCT_XACTN_CRN AS SELECT CUSTACCNUM, FUNDID,
I have created a materialized view and also a normal View, which has 3 tables used in both the views, when inserted new records it reflects in a normal view but when i select the materialized view i cant see the updated data.
here is the materialized view i created;
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW pct_sales_materialized BUILD IMMEDIATE REFRESH ON DEMAND ENABLE QUERY REWRITE AS SELECT A.DEP_NAME,B.EMP_ID,C.EMP_NAME FROM department_head A,department_child B,emp_detail C WHERE A.DEP_ID = B.DEP_ID AND B.EMP_ID = C.EMP_ID
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;
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
We have a person running a query and following is the explain plan
explain plan for
select distinct(extractvalue(xmltype(a.email_variables), '/CalliopeData/Attributes/HOTEL_BRAND')) as ThisBrand from hh.t_ecomm_mem_relations a where extractvalue(xmltype(a.email_variables), '/CalliopeData/Attributes/HOTEL_BRAND') not in (select b.code_brand from hh.t_pr_brand b) and a.code_corr_ecat = 'PREA' and a.status = 'S' and a.audit_time > sysdate - 1 ;
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Plan hash value: 1904775187
I have a view on base tables holding historical data for previous 60 months(one table per month) with union all operators.create index on those base tables will improve performance or creating a primary key with disabled novalidate will improve for retrieving data?
The view has around 8 million data and used as a fact table with 4 dimension tables.A DTS package from MSSql side refreshes OLAP cube by retrieving data from these tables in oracle.
In search queries generally we select 10-25 columns (more can't be displayed on the screen) from 5-10 tables
Say in case of insurance related application, the search might be on policy number, policy holder's first name, policy holder's last name, region, policy type etc.
And not to many columns we are displaying on the screen, say, 4 tables have collectively 4 * 20 = 80 columns, then we are displaying say 12-15 columns with 2-3 columns have aggregates on it.
since the search criteria (e.g. first name, last name, policy number etc.) is not known till last moment it will be a generic dynamic query
Is it possible that instead we create a Materialized view with query with only joining conditions but no filter conditions and selecting only columns to be displayed on the screen and then we will refresh the materialized view (to take care of recent business transactions) and fire refined query with filter criteria on this materialized view
Select col1,col2,col3,col4,col5 From tab1,tab2,tab3,tab4 Where tab1.col1=tab2.col1 And tab2.col2=tab3.col2 And tab2.col2=tab4.col2;
Will it improve performance of the search functionality
If you have 3 tables (yr09, yr10,yr11) one with 2009 data, 2010 and 2011 data respectively. And a view (vw_yr091011) with a "union all" on all three.
Question: Will the performance be same for the following two queries ?
Question: Will Oracle read all 3 tables in the view when we search for only one year ?
select count(*) from yr09 where year = 2009;
-- vs
select count(*) from vw_yr091011 where year = 2009;
The following link says yes, the performance remains the same.
Link: [URL]..........
when I tried on a volume of 14000 records. The count came out same but the view took 50 more sec. And the explain plan shows it accessed all three tables.
I'm working on a query that will show how many differents SKUs we have on-hand, how many of those SKUs have been cycle-counted, and how many we have yet to cycle-count.I've prepared a sample table and data:
What I also want to do is select another column that will group by sku.abc and count the total number of A, B, and C SKUs where the lot.qty is > 0:
SELECT sk.abc AS "STRATA", COUNT (DISTINCT sk.sku) AS "Total" FROM sku sk, (SELECT sku FROM lot WHERE qty > 0) item WHERE item.sku = sk.sku(+) GROUP BY sk.abc
Finally, I need the last column to display the DIFFERENCE between the two totals from the queries above (the difference between the "counted" and the "total"):
I've been examining som old queries in an existing db due to more and more problems regarding performance. The sql is used as backend for a java/jboss web application with the possibility for users to enter data. With more and more data, there starting to come complaints about the performance.
I stumbled upon a select query with an embedded cursor similar to this :
select id, name ..., cursor(select id, sequence.... from table2), cursor(select id, name.... from table3) from table1 join table4 on (table1.id = table4.id) where .....
The javacode is a prepared statement with the actual sql as a string and the content of the cursors saved in conjunction with each row.
when i use sqldeveloper to show the explain plan without the cursors, the cost is 2428 when i use sqldeveloper to show the explain plan with just 1 of the cursors, the cost is ~165000
Is there a better way to do this instead of cursors ?
I have a base table with ~20 mio. records with two FAST REFRESH Materialized Views based on that table using various aggregate functions in their view definition.
The problem is, when e.g. one record changes in the base table, I see two records in the MV log table MLOG$, but invoking the fast refresh mechanism by using using:
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having production system: 11.2.0.1 on Windows Server x64 Test system: 9.2.0.1 on Windows XP
Problem preface: to get all unique CASEID which should be checked up by biometric system.What i should check - all CASEs for different PERSONs having same PHONEs at least among one phone type (1..4).Real table contains little bit more than 10 million records.I made test scripts.
Below the DDL for test table creation: ------------------------------------------ -- Create CASEINFO test table ------------------------------------------ DROP TABLE CASEINFO; CREATE TABLE CASEINFO
[code]...
Below i've put SQL/DLL to make test data.number of records inserted 2 millions. PERSON_COUNT := #/8; ------------------------------------------ -- fill CASEINFO with sample data ------------------------------------------ DECLARE I INTEGER;
[code]...
Below SQL select to check the data in created table. ------------------------------------------ -- Check test data counters ------------------------------------------ SELECT 'TOTAL',count(*) from CASEINFO UNION ALL SELECT 'LEGAL',count(*) from CASEINFO where
[code]...
The PROBLEM is that i am experiencing HUGE perfomance problems on both test and production systems with that query:
select distinct b.caseid from CASEINFO a, CASEINFO b where (a.person<>b.person) and (a.sex=b.sex) and ( (a.phone1=b.phone1) or (a.phone1=b.phone2) or (a.phone1=b.phone3) or
[code]...
This query takes almost 90 minutes to execute.And i do not know how to avoid this.Full SQL file to make test attached.
base on performance it is better to retrieve data from view or mention the table names directly?
I have a select statement in from clause one of my table is view (which is having data collected from four tables) my question is whether performance of querry will be improved if i use directly all tables( four tables of a view) instead of a view
I was confused by partitioed table, when i select a partition of table, how does oracle to scan blocks? it scan all blocks of table or scan a single partition blocks only?
SQL> Explain Plan For 2 Select Count(1) From Tb_Hxl_List Partition(p_L3);
BANNER ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.4.0 - 64bi PL/SQL Release 10.2.0.4.0 - Production CORE 10.2.0.4.0 Production TNS for Solaris: Version 10.2.0.4.0 - Production NLSRTL Version 10.2.0.4.0 - Production
5 rows selected.
I have a problem with views and nested selects which I cannot explain. Here is a trimed down version of the research I have done. notice the following:
1) all code is executed from the same user CDRNORMALCODE. this user has all views and procedural code 2) all data is owned by a different user CDRDATA. This user has no views and no code.
My problem is this:
If I reference the table directly with a delete statement that uses a nested select (i.e. IN clause with select), the index I expect and want is used.But if I execute the same delete but reference even the most simple of views (select * from <table>) instead of the table itself, then a full table scan is done of the table.
Here is an execute against the table directly (owned by cdrdata). Notice the reference to the table in the table schema on line 3. Also please notice INDEX RANGE SCAN BSNSS_CLSS_CASE_RULE_FK1 at the bottom of the plan.
SQL> show user USER is "CDRNORMALCODE" SQL> SQL> explain plan for 2 delete
[code]...
OK, here is an update. The views I am useing normally have instead of triggers on them. If I remove the instead of trigger the problem looks like it goes away, when I put the trigger back the problem comes back.But why would an instead-of-trigger change the query plan for a view?
SQL> DELETE FROM PLAN_TABLE;
5 rows deleted.
SQL> explain plan for 2 delete 3 from BSNSS_CLSS_MNR_CASE_RULE_SV
Our application servers will be running a SELECT which returns zero rows all the time.This SELECT is put into a package and this package will be called by application servers very frequently which is causing unnecessary CPU.
Original query and plan
SQL> SELECT SEGMENT_JOB_ID, SEGMENT_SET_JOB_ID, SEGMENT_ID, TARGET_VERSION FROM AIMUSER.SEGMENT_JOBS WHERE SEGMENT_JOB_ID NOT IN (SELECT SEGMENT_JOB_ID FROM AIMUSER.SEGMENT_JOBS) 2 3 4 5 ; [code]....
Which option will be better or do we have other options?They need to pass the column's with zero rows to a ref cursor.
select serialnumber from product where productid in (select /*+ full parallel(producttask 16) */productid from producttask where startedtimestamp > to_date('2013-07-04 00:00:00', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and startedtimestamp < to_date('2013-07-05 00:00:00', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and producttasktypeid in
I have a table that partitioned into six partitions. each partitions placed in different table space and every two table space placed it on a different hardisk
when I will do query select with the non-partition keys condition, how the search process ? whether the sequence (scan sequentially from partition 1 to partition 6) or partition in a hardisk is accessed at the same time with other partition in other hardisk. ( in the image, partition 1,4 accessed at the same time with partition 2,5 and 3,6)
Looking to understand the difference between instance tuning and database tuning.
What is the difference between these two tuning exercises? I understand that an instance is memory based structures (logical) where as database consists of physical structures.
However, how does one tune a database the physical structure? Does it have to do with file placements/block sizes etc. Would you agree that a lot of that is taken care by ASM now in 11g? What tools are required/available (third party as well as oracle supplied) for these types of tuning scenarios?
We wrote one data load process to load GZ files into Database.during process we will change client facing view definitions to backup table so that we can work on base tables.
This view definition changes are related to FROM and WHERE clause (not columns/type). during load process, client/user may connect to current server and accessing these views. My question is what will be the reflection of changing view definition while user is accessing view?
I created a scenario- STEP1: Created a view- create or replace view view_01 as select object_name from dba_objects union all select object_name from dba_objects union all select object_name from dba_objects union all [code]....
View definition is replaced by new definition while select is executing on that view. select returned number of records as per view definition one.
I have two tables with 113M records in DWH_BILL_DET & 103M in prd_rerate_chg_que and Im running following merge query, which is running for 13 hrs to update records, which is quiet longer time.
SQL> explain plan for MERGE /*+ parallel (rq, 16) */ INTO DWH_BILL_DET rq USING (SELECT rated_que_rowid, detail_rerate_flag_code, rerate_sel_key,
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'.
I have a question about database fragmentation.I know that fragmentation can reduce performance in query times. The blocks are distributed in many extents and scans process takes a long time. Oracle engine have to locate the address of the next extent..
I want to know if there is any system view in which you can check if your table or index has high fragmentation. If it's needed I will have to re-create, move or rebulid the table or index, but before I want to know if the degree of fragmentation is high.
Any useful script or query to do this, any interesting oracle system view?
There is a simple way to increase the performance of a query by reducing the row-size of the table it hits. I used it in the past by dividing the table into smaller parts and querying respective smaller table in each query.
what is this method called ? just forgot the method and can't recall it. what this type of row-reduction optimization is called ?
How many records could I have in a single table without performance degradation with Standard Edition without partitioning with cutting-edge server (8 or 12 cores, 72 GB RAM, FC 4 Gbit, etc...) and good storage?
300 Millions in only one table with 500K transactions / day is too much?
Testing our 9i to 11g upgrade, we've imported the entire DB into the new machine.We've found that certain procedures are really suffering performance problems. BUT, we've also found, that if we check out a production copy of the procedure from our source code control, and reinstall it, the performance issue goes away. Just alter the procedure and recompiling does NOT work.
The new machine where the 11g database exists is slightly different than the source, but it's not like we have this problem with every procedure. It's only a couple.
any possible reason that we'd have to re-install a procedure to correct a performance problem?
I need to check the package performance and need to improve the package performance.
1. how to check the package performance(each and every statement in the package)? 2. In the package using the delete statement to delete all records and observed that delete is taking long time to delete all the records in the table(Table records 7000000). This table is like staging table.Daily need to clean the data before inserting the data into it. what can I use instead of Delete.
