Performance Tuning :: Two UNION ALL - Modify Index Or Partition
Jan 27, 2012
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
I have a SQL query where I am making UNION of two select statements. The table that I am joining in each select statement have indexes defined for those tables.
Now the UNION of the two select statements again in enclosed in an inline view , from which I fetching my final field values.
The select statements inside the inline view returns huge number of row (like 50 million rows).
The whole query fails with time out.
Is there a way to pass Oracle Hints so that Oracle uses indexes?
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)
now my code is using UNION ALL to get output as in table2 select col1,col1,'Segment1' col3,Segment1 col4 from table1 union all select col1,col1,'Segment2' col3,Segment2 from table1 union all select col1,col1,'Segment3' col3,Segment3 from table1
But the problem is the performance is realy bad.Is there any way i can do this without using union all? The time that take to execute this is not exceptable.
Oracle UNION ALL performance issue: when I try to run below SQL query separately SQL part1 and SQL part2 it takes some seconds only but if I run together with group by and without group by it take much time.
SELECT AVG(date_completed-login_date),to_char(to_date(login_date), 'YYYY') as wYear FROM ( SELECT test.date_completed 'date_completed',sample.login_date 'login_date') FROM sample test where (some conditions) ) ---SQL part 1 UNION ALL
1DGT_ITEMEFFORTDATA_DAILYHCLT_IDX_DGT_IFDITEMID4 2DGT_ITEMEFFORTDATA_DAILYHCLT_IDX_DGT_IFDITEMTYPE3 3DGT_ITEMEFFORTDATA_DAILYHCLT_IDX_DGT_IFDOWNERID2 4DGT_ITEMEFFORTDATA_DAILYHCLT_IDX_DGT_IFDOWNERTYPE1 There is no index on DGT_ITEMEFFORTDATA_TEMP 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.
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 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'.
So 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 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);
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
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.
* 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 ;
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
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.
There is a customer_account table. It is partitioned by Range. In one of the partition, the range value is given wrongly, and irrelevant data sits in that partition.
How can i modify the range partition value and re-arrange the data ?
mbr 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.
i am trying to find the index want to rebuild or not for that i have analyzed that index after that i don't know how to calculate the ration could any one steps to do calculate the following ratio
Run the ANALYZE INDEX command on the index to validate its structure and then calculate the ratio of LF_BLK_LEN/LF_BLK_LEN+BR_BLK_LEN and if it isn?t near 1.0 (i.e. greater than 0.7 or so) then the index should be rebuilt. Or if the ratio BR_BLK_LEN/ LF_BLK_LEN+BR_BLK_LEN is nearing 0.3.
