Here would be execution steps:. Step 1. Step 2. Assuming the index have below average clustering factor, and table is huge, it will be safe assumption to say almost each row will be in different table block. For this step only. Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. Steps will repeat times.
Even after repeating steps times, step 2 is still heaviest by far. I was not able to find any way to hint SQL, to adjust it to plan like this if anybody knows the way it would be cool. But with some regrouping its possible. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. If you wish to contact me directly, please do so at richard.
For information on Richard Foote Consulting , please visit richardfooteconsulting. Like this: Like Loading Comments » 1. Thanks as always for sharing the information. Warm Regards, Vijay Sehgal. Like Like Reply. Richard where did you get the value 42 from for this line? Hi Richard, Thanks for such a nice explanation on new feature.
Could you please explain? Hi Richard thanks for the info. Two things to note: 1. Hi Timur The default is 1 to keep with current behaviour, although I would suggest that 42 would probably be a better default :. Thanks for the heads-up regarding setting the schema prefs. Very cool, thanks Richard. I think this can be put to use fairly soon for at least one client.
Hi Jared I think this will be put to use in many many databases once word gets around. Hi Ali Good question. Hi Richard, Thanks for your post. Richard, Thanks for the explanation. Horia P. Hi Horia So you now have 6 simulataneous sessions getting in each others way, effectively using 6 freelists. Richard, 42 is you trademark already! Cheers, Horia Like Like Reply. Thanks a lot, Uwe Like Like Reply.
For E-Business Suite Customers on Thanks, Marius Like Like Reply. Hi Marius Well the difference is that statistics gathering will automatically set the CF to a reasonably accurate value whereas hacking has to be performed manually and could be set to a totally inappropriate value. So automatic and acurrate vs. This is good. How did I not notice this? You can explain why it happened. And what version Oracle you are testing? Hi Souluran OK, the key reason why your result differs is that you only have the one session running the procedure.
Like Liked by 1 person Reply. Will these ever be used? Thank you Like Like Reply. Hi Peter The reason why is because when using an index, generally most of the work is in relation to not reading the actual index blocks, but in reading the associated table blocks. Please ignore that part about HASH join. I wrote it before I did the run with altered session. Peter Like Like Reply. Rather than the default value of 1, […] Like Like Reply.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Follow Following. Richard Foote's Oracle Blog Join 3, other followers. Sign me up. Already have a WordPress. Log in now. Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website. Richard Grayson on Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing:….
Richard Foote on Oracle Database 19c Automatic…. Richard Foote on Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing:…. Rajeshwaran Jeyabal on Oracle Database 19c Automatic…. Rajeshwaran Jeyabal on Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing:….
Oracle 19c Automatic… on Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing:…. Active Oldest Votes. You are seeing the evidence of a heap table indexed by an ordered tree structure. If you want to do this like SQL Server or Sybase clustered indexes , in Oracle you have a couple of options: Simply create supplemental indexes with additional columns that can satisfy your common queries.
Oracle can return a result set from an index without referring to the base table if all of the required columns are in the index. If possible, consider adding columns to the trailing end of your PK to serve your heaviest query practical if your query has small number of columns.
This is usually advisable over changing all of your tables to IOTs. Sorted hash cluster - More complicated, but can also yield gains when accessing a list of records for a certain key like a bunch of text messages for a given phone number Reorganize your data and store the records in the table in order of your index. This option is ok if your data isn't changing, and you just want to reorder the heap, though you can't explicitly control the order; all you can do is order the query and let Oracle append it to a new segment.
Improve this answer. The database retrieves it very fast. Then IOT, I cannot opt for, as tht might affect the performance of my Inserts, and also, there are multiple secondary indexes over it. It appears not to create any performance mess. Atleast with my test results. It is an aspect of measuring 2 adjacent keys. As far as impact to insert performance, again, you normally insert once and ready many, many times, so insert performance is mostly of concern for non-OLTP purposes.
Unfortunately for my case, there will be atleast 10K inserts and 5K deletes on a daily basis. Like comments created and purged. Else Hash clusters would have been in place — Maheswaran Ravisankar.
Well 10K per day isn't that much. That is less than per hour, pocket change for an Exadata. If you want more performance, though, you could go for full SSD storage. Are they offering SSD as an option on Exadata nowadays?
0コメント