Is it possible to build index partition in parallel?I tried following command
alter index <index_name> rebuild partition <partition name> online parallel 5;
It executed without complaining, but want to know if index partitions can be build in parallel?
If we have not set parallel degree for a table then we can ( try to ) force parallel execution on a table using a parallel hint Does this 'parallelism' works on the index search in the query as well?
In which situations non-parallel non-partitioned table but parallel index (degree>2) will facilitate a query?
We have a large customer table so first thought was to partition.Also we see two union alls in the plan - can we introduce parallelism? Below is the plan - have attached a text file if difficult to read
SELECT V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.UID_V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP AS "UID",
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ABA, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS1,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS2, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS3,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ADDRESS4, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.ALIAS,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CITY, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.COUNTRYCODE,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CUST_CODE, V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.CUST_NAME,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.HEAD_OFFICE_IN,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.IDENTIFIER,
V_IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP.IDENTIFIER_TYPE,
[code]...
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)
I am inserting data into a global temporary table and then using 'parallel' hint to query from this temporary table. I remember reading that the queries on the temp table may not run in parallel as the parallel sessions may not be able to see the data in the temporary table
However the execution plan as well as px_session, v$sql indicate that the query on the temporary table in fact run in parallel mode
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor(null,null,'ALLSTATS LAST'));
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL_ID 7d68g52g0mskz, child number 0
-------------------------------------
select /*+ gather_plan_statistics parallel(t,4) */ * from dbo_gtt t order by id,object_id
Plan hash value: 5815349
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Starts | E-Rows | A-Rows | A-Time | Buffers | OMem | 1Mem | Used-Mem |Used-Tmp|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1 | PX COORDINATOR | | 1 | | 99999 |00:00:01.46 | 3 | | | |
|
| 2 | PX SEND QC (ORDER) | :TQ10001 | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | | | |
|
| 3 | SORT ORDER BY | | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | 11M| 1311K| 424K (0)|
|
| 4 | PX RECEIVE | | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | | | |
|
| 5 | PX SEND RANGE | :TQ10000 | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | | | |
|
| 6 | PX BLOCK ITERATOR | | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | | | |
|
|* 7 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| DBO_GTT | 0 | 1 | 0 |00:00:00.01 | 0 | | | |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
7 - access(:Z>=:Z AND :Z<=:Z)
select px_servers_executions from v$sql where sql_text like 'select%dbo_gtt t%';
PX_SERVERS_EXECUTIONS
---------------------
0
4
select sid, qcsid, server#, degree from v$px_session where qcsid = 228;
SID QCSID SERVER# DEGREE
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
247 228 1 4
196 228 2 4
224 228 3 4
234 228 4 4
226 228 1 4
252 228 2 4
212 228 3 4
229 228 4 4
228 228
9 rows selected.
unfortunately I do not have access to get trace (tkprof) report. What must have happened during the execution?
I am executing a sql statement which is doing FTS in parallel mode The server has 8 cpus and threads_per_cpu is 2
The v$sql shows PX_SERVERS_EXECUTIONS as 8
select PX_SERVERS_EXECUTIONS, sql_text from v$sql where sql_id='0q0nk5117yth2'
8, select /*+ full(a) parallel(a)....
however the px_sessions shows 17 sessions (16 parallel session + 1 parent session (where sid = qcsid) Now in px_sessions, these 16 parallel session are divided in 2 server sets 1 and 2 and values for degree and required degree are 8 and 16 respectively
However, all the time, only 8 sessions which belong to server set = 1, were active though its state was waiting with event "PX Deq Credit: send blkd"
The other session which belong to server set = 2 were never active and always had waint event ='PX Deq: Execution Msg'
what could be the reason that 16 parallel session could not be started though I am the only person using the server, there aren't any batch jobs, dbms_jobs,even archivelogs (not a prod system)?
Note that paralel_max_servers setting is 16
Another issue being the duing start of the query approximately 100-115 blocks were read for the query (checked from longops) however after 60-70% blocks are read the number of blocks read / seconds falls down to 10-20 blocks / second across all parallel sessions.
Does parallel hint works in cursor queries? The cursor query is something like :
cursor c is
select /*+ parallel(s,8) */
from table ref_tab s ---- >>
<where condition>;
The table ref_tab hold data for a single day at any point of time and gets truncate before loading the next days data.On average the table holds around 7 million rows and doesn't contains any index (think that's fine as all together we are loading the whole set).And, we are using bulk logic with save exceptions to open the cursor and load the data into the target table.
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 RelatedThere is a detail table
There is a summary table
During batch process record is entered in detail table as well as summary table.
The process first checks if record exists in summary table for same group_no and if 'yes' then "updates" the record with the newly added amount (sums it) else inserts a new record
Whereas in the detail table it inserts the record directly
detail table :
group_no doc_no amount
101 doc1 100
101 doc2 200
102 doc3 300
102 doc4 400
summary table :
group_no amount
101 300
102 700
Now if the batch process runs in parallel, (out of many) two different sessions insert same group_no; This is because while sesond session inserts a record, first session inserting the same record (group_no) has not yet committed ; So second session Not knowing that already there is same Group_no (101) inserted, again inserts another record with same group_no rather than summing it.
Can it be solved without using temp table, select for update?
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
[code]....
Explain plan output:
Plan hash value: 2779236890
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name| Rows| Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time| Pstart| Pstop |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT || 1 | 29 | 9633M (8)|999:59:59 |||
|* 1 | FILTER |||| ||||
| 2 | PARTITION RANGE ALL || 738M| 19G| 6321K (1)| 21:04:17 | 1 | 6821 |
[code]....
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter( EXISTS (<not feasible>)
4 - filter("PRODUCTID"=:B1)
5 - filter(ROWNUM<100)
12 - access("MODELID"=:B1)
[code]....
Note: - SQL profile "SYS_SQLPROF_014153616b850002" used for this statement
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?
How to force an index if the table not using the index?
View 10 Replies View Relateddoes parallel hint in query can create bottleneck/Slowdown/crash database..??
View 4 Replies View RelatedHow 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'.
What are the factors that decide on which column we should partition the table and which partition method we should chose.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have 525 partitions and we want find out partition wise total count. finding partitionwise count in a particular table.
View 12 Replies View RelatedSo our situation is pretty simple. We have 3 tables.
A, B and C
the model is A->>B->>C
Currently A, B and C are range partitioned on a key created_date however it's typical that only C is every qualfied with created date. There is a foreign key from B -> A and C -> Bhave many queries where the data is identified by state that is indexed currently non partitioned on columns in A ... there are also indexes on the foreign keys that get from C -> B -> A. Again these are non partitioned indexes at this time.
It is typical that we qualifier A on either account or user or both. There are indexes (non partitioned on these) We have a problem with now because many of the queries use leading wildcards ie. account like '%ACCOUNT' etc. This often results in large full table scans. Our solution has been to remove the leading wildcard.
We are wondering how we can benefit from partitioning and or sub partitioning table A. since it's partitioned on created_date but rarely qualified by that. We are also wondering where and how we can benefit from either global partitioned index or local partitioned indexes on tables A. We suspect that the index on the foreign key from C to B could be a local partitioned index.
I think that performance better partition table than non-partition table. How to assure partition table is better than non-partition table at SELECT operation?
I have compare a specific query EXPLAIN PLAN at partition table and non-partition table. both tables data is same. Is it true way or not?
I have to create a hash partition on fact tables.. we can use temp tablespace or permanent tablespace.
View 10 Replies View RelatedI 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);
Explained.
SQL> Select * From Table(dbms_xplan.display);
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | |
| 2 | PARTITION LIST SINGLE| | 33115 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TB_HXL_LIST | 33115 | 18 (0)| 00:00:01 |
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].....
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.
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 ;
is there any way to reduce the index creation time.
in my case one index creation took 5 minute and there are 5 indexes , so it took 25 minutes.
I have the following problem. When I used in the IN-Statement fixed values e.q. 197321,197322,197323 ..., the index i_tab2_index works fine (index range scan).
But when I used in the IN-Statement an Sub-Select, the index i_tab2_index doesn't work (fast full scan)!My scale indices and used Selects:
CREATE INDEX i_tab1_index ON tab1 ( datum, flag_inst );
CREATE INDEX i_tab2_index ON tab2 ( tab2Idx, kontro );
SELECT count(epidx) as rowAnz
FROM tab2
WHERE tab2Idx IN ( SELECT tab1IDX FROM tab1
WHERE datum BETWEEN '20120117' AND '20120117'
AND flag_inst = '1' )
AND kontro = '9876521'
[code]...
get all the unused index in the system , if i put this query in batch job and execute it every night upto one months and store its data in a table and after one months i can get all the used indexes and left would be our unused indexes.
select
distinct p.object_name c1
from
dba_hist_sql_plan p,
dba_hist_sqlstat s
[Code]....
I have a table whose size is 2.3 GB and there are two indexes on it. One index is based on a Date column whose size is 900 MB, and the Other index consists of 5 columns including the date column, and the size is almost 2GB. But when i query the table using the Date column, it is doing a range scan on the second index which is almost the same size as the table. why is it not using the first index? What steps should i take so that it uses the First index without passing hints.
View 4 Replies View RelatedWhat is the difference between index rebuild and index rebuild online.
View 3 Replies View Relatedmbr has 60,000 rows and member has 60,000 rows approx. two tables have indexes on ssn, and citi_no on them.
PK of mbr : mbr_id
PK of member : mbr_id
other columns are not PK, and have no index on it.
I'm wondering why the statment doesn't use index while ssn and citi_no have index.
MERGE INTO mbr t
USING (SELECT mbr_id,citi_no
FROM member) a
ON (t.ssn = a.citi_no)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET t.asis_mbr_id = a.mbr_id
where t.ssn not in(select ssn from mbr group by ssn having count(*) > 1)
I have to create indexes on foreign key columns ,now if composite index is already there with foreign key column then that will work or i will have to create a single column index.
View 17 Replies View Related