Function-based indexes problem

I'he entered the lines below:
ALTER SESSION
SET OPTIMIZER_MODE = FIRST_ROWS;
ALTER SESSION
SET QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED = TRUE;
ALTER SESSION
SET QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY = TRUSTED;
CREATE TABLE qwe(
qwe_id CONSTRAINT pk_qwe_id PRIMARY KEY,
data VARCHAR2(10)
CONSTRAINT nn_qwe_data NOT NULL
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX u_qwe_data_idx
ON qwe(UPPER(data)) COMPUTE STATISTICS;
ANALYZE TABLE qwe COMPUTE STATISTICS;
The reason is to obtain EXECUTION PLAN for
simple queries:
1) EXPLAIN PLAN FOR
SELECT UPPER(data) FROM qwe
WHERE UPPER(data) IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY UPPER(data);
That is OK - Oracle use u_qwe_data_idx INDEX
2) EXPLAIN PLAN FOR
SELECT * FROM qwe
WHERE UPPER(data) IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY UPPER(data)
Oops! TABLE ACCESS - FULL
Jrn-mhasd| lnfer }rn nazqmhr|?
u_qwe_data_idx INDEX is IGNORED
Does anybody know how to make ORACLE to use this INDEX and where is my MISTAKE?

how big is your table? if it's less than
DB_BLOCK_SIZE * DB_FILE MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT
( which should sum to 64k or thereabouts, the figure is machine/OS specific) then the whole table can be read in a single sweep whereas an indexed read will always require at least two sweeps.
This is compounded if most of your column data is populated: it is much more efficient to do a full table scan and then produce a result set in memeory by discarding the rows that don't meet your criteria.
In the old days the Rule Based Optimizer would have used your index and performed very badly. the whole point about statistics is they provide the Cost Based Optimizer with an accurate view of the distribution of data in your tables so that it can see whether it is more efficient to use any given index. And it your scenario the answer is no.
I hope that's clear.
HTH, APC

Similar Messages

  • Problem using two function based indexes at once!

    Hello Oracle!
    I've got problems using two function based indexes on geometries at once.
    The problem occures, when I use a spatial join between two geometries both using function based indexes.
    The test case:
    CREATE TABLE quad (centroid NUMBER);
    CREATE TABLE points (no NUMBER, point MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY);
    CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION getQuad (centroid NUMBER) RETURN MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY DETERMINISTIC IS
    BEGIN
    RETURN MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY(2003, NULL, NULL, MDSYS.SDO_ELEM_INFO_ARRAY(1,1003,1),MDSYS.SDO_ORDINATE_ARRAY(centroid-5,centroid-5,centroid+5,centroid-5,centroid+5,centroid+5,centroid-5,centroid+5,centroid-5,centroid-5));
    END;
    INSERT INTO USER_SDO_GEOM_METADATA VALUES('quad','tiedge.getQuad(centroid)',MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ARRAY(MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ELEMENT('X', -100, 100, .0000001), MDSYS.SDO_DIM_ELEMENT('Y', -100, 100, .0000001)),NULL);
    CREATE INDEX quad_idx on quad(getQuad(centroid)) INDEXTYPE IS MDSYS.SPATIAL_INDEX;
    INSERT INTO quad VALUES (0);
    INSERT INTO quad VALUES (5);
    INSERT INTO quad VALUES (10);
    INSERT INTO points VALUES (1, MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY(1001,NULL,NULL,MDSYS.SDO_ELEM_INFO_ARRAY(1,1,1),MDSYS.SDO_ORDINATE_ARRAY(4,4)));
    ALTER SESSION SET QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY=TRUSTED;
    ALTER SESSION SET QUERY_REWRITE_ENA[i]Long postings are being truncated to ~1 kB at this time.

    hi there,
    For a better audience for this question, I'd look at the database forum.
    guys on that will be a lot more familiar with FBIs
    thanks
    Barry

  • Performance problem on function-based index

    Hi guys,
    I am having performance problems with the addition of new function-based indexes.
    alter session set nls_comp='ANSI';
    alter session set nls_sort='BINARY_CI';
    * have to run this because the of case-insensitivity requirements
    I have a view. for ex:
    create or replace view view1
    as
    select * from emp1,user
    where emp1.empno=user.empno
    union
    select * from emp2,user
    where emp2.empno=user.empno
    union
    select * from emp3,user
    where emp3.empno=user.empno and so on
    When I run this it works with a full table scan. Then when i created a function-based index:
    create index user_ix on
    user(nlssort(empno,'NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI'));
    analyze index user_ix compute statistics;
    analyze table user compute statistics;
    the view hangs. but when i run the individual select statements it works.
    Do you guys have any idea on what's going on? Any advise is greatly appreciated.
    Thanks.

    LC is absolutely right. Brain cramp on my part.
    On the other hand, I can't seem to coerce Oracle to apply a to_binary_double conversion as part of an implicit conversion.
    var bin_dbl binary_double;
    select to_binary_double(14) into :bin_dbl from dual;
    SCOTT @ nx102 JCAVE9420> select * from emp where empno = :bin_dbl;
    no rows selected
    Elapsed: 00:00:00.14
    Execution Plan
    Plan hash value: 2949544139
    | Id  | Operation                   | Name   | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT            |        |     1 |    39 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |   1 |  TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| EMP    |     1 |    39 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |*  2 |   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | PK_EMP |     1 |       |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       2 - access("EMPNO"=TO_NUMBER(:BIN_DBL))I'd expect that Oracle would try to convert the binary double to a number, not the other way around.
    Justin

  • Problem creating a function based index

    Hi,
    Database: 8.0.6
    OS: win 2000 server
    I want to create a function based index as shown below:
    sql> create index new_index on A_INP_PATIENTS_ADMT(bus_unit, admit_status_flag, nvl(clinical_discharge_yn,'N'), ward_code)
    When i press return its showing error,
    "ORA-00907: missing right parenthesis"
    Please show me how to rewrite this query to build function based index.
    Best Regards,
    Edited by: ateeqrahman on Jun 6, 2010 2:34 PM

    Your sql is fine:
    SQL> CREATE TABLE A_INP_PATIENTS_ADMT(
      2                                   bus_unit number,
      3                                   admit_status_flag varchar2(1),
      4                                   clinical_discharge_yn varchar2(1),
      5                                   ward_code varchar2(10)
      6                                  )
      7  /
    Table created.
    SQL> create index new_index on A_INP_PATIENTS_ADMT(bus_unit, admit_status_flag, nvl(clinical_discharge_yn,'N'), ward_code)
      2  /
    Index created.
    SQL> You did not post Oracle version. Most likely, you are on some older version that does not support FBI. Otherwise, post your version and table description and create index statement execution showing all errors you are getting.
    SY.

  • Function-based index with OR in the wher-clause

    We have some problems with functin-based indexes and
    the or-condition in a where-clause.
    --We use Oracle 8i (8.1.7)
    create table TPERSON(ID number(10),NAME varchar2(20),...);
    create index I_NORMAL_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(NAME);
    create index I_FUNCTION_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(UPPER(NAME));
    The following two statements run very fast on a large table
    and the execution-plan asure the usage of the indexes
    (-while the session is appropriate configured and the table is analyzed):
    1)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%';
    2)     select count(ID) from TPERSON where NAME like 'Mil%' or (3=5);
    In particular we see that a normal index is used while the where-clause contains
    an OR-CONDITION.
    But if we try the similarly select-statement
    3)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (3=5);
    the CBO will not use the function-index I_FUNCTION_TPERSON_NAME and we have a full table scan in the execution-plan.
    (This behavior we only expect with views but not with indexes.)
    We ask for an advice like a hint, which enable the CBO-usage
    of function-based indexes in connection with OR.
    This problem seems to be artificial because it contains this dummy logic:
         or (3=5).
    This steams from an prepared statement, where this kind of boolean
    flag reduce the amount of different select-statements needed for
    covering the hole business-logic, while using bind-variables for the
    concrete query-parameters.
    A more realistic (still boild down) version of our select-statement is:
    select * FROM TPERSON
    where (upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (NAME is null))
    and (upper(FIRSTNAME) like 'MICH% or (FIRSTNAME is null))
    and ...;
    thank you for time..
    email: [email protected]

    In the realistic statement you write :
    select * FROM TPERSON
    where (upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (NAME is null))
    and (upper(FIRSTNAME) like 'MICH% or (FIRSTNAME is null))
    and ...;
    as far as i know, NULL values are not indexed, "or (NAME is NULL)" have to generate a full table scan.
    HTH
    We have some problems with functin-based indexes and
    the or-condition in a where-clause.
    --We use Oracle 8i (8.1.7)
    create table TPERSON(ID number(10),NAME varchar2(20),...);
    create index I_NORMAL_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(NAME);
    create index I_FUNCTION_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(UPPER(NAME));
    The following two statements run very fast on a large table
    and the execution-plan asure the usage of the indexes
    (-while the session is appropriate configured and the table is analyzed):
    1)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%';
    2)     select count(ID) from TPERSON where NAME like 'Mil%' or (3=5);
    In particular we see that a normal index is used while the where-clause contains
    an OR-CONDITION.
    But if we try the similarly select-statement
    3)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (3=5);
    the CBO will not use the function-index I_FUNCTION_TPERSON_NAME and we have a full table scan in the execution-plan.
    (This behavior we only expect with views but not with indexes.)
    We ask for an advice like a hint, which enable the CBO-usage
    of function-based indexes in connection with OR.
    This problem seems to be artificial because it contains this dummy logic:
         or (3=5).
    This steams from an prepared statement, where this kind of boolean
    flag reduce the amount of different select-statements needed for
    covering the hole business-logic, while using bind-variables for the
    concrete query-parameters.
    A more realistic (still boild down) version of our select-statement is:
    select * FROM TPERSON
    where (upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (NAME is null))
    and (upper(FIRSTNAME) like 'MICH% or (FIRSTNAME is null))
    and ...;
    thank you for time..
    email: [email protected]

  • Function-based Index and an OR-condition in the WHERE-clause

    We have some problems with functin-based indexes and
    the or-condition in a where-clause.
    (We use oracle 8i (8.1.7))
    create table TPERSON(ID number(10),NAME varchar2(20),...);
    create index I_NORMAL_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(NAME);
    create index I_FUNCTION_TPERSON_NAME on TPERSON(UPPER(NAME));
    The following two statements run very fast on a large table
    and the execution-plan asure the usage of the indexes
    (-while the session is appropriate configured and the table is analyzed):
    1)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%';
    2)     select count(ID) from TPERSON where NAME like 'Mil%' or (3=5);
    In particular we see that a normal index is used while the where-clause contains
    an OR-CONDITION.
    But if we try the similarly select-statement
    3)     select count(ID) FROM TPERSON where upper(NAME) like 'MIL%' or (3=5);
    the CBO will not use the function-index.
    (This behavior we only expect with views but not with indexes.)
    We ask for an advice like an hint, which enable the CBO-usage
    of function-based indexes in connection with OR.
    This problem seems to be artificial because it contains this dummy logic:
         or (3=5).
    This steams from an prepared statement, where this kind of boolean
    flag reduce the amount of different select-statements needed for
    covering the hole business-logic, while using bind-variables for the
    concrete query-parameters.
    A more realistic (still boild down) version of our prepared select-statement run in
    SQL Plus:
    define x_name = 'MIL%';
    define x_firstname = '';
    select * FROM TPERSON
    where (upper(NAME) like '&x_name' or ( '&x_name' = ''))
    and (upper(FIRSTNAME) like '&x_firstname' or ('&x_firstname' = ''))
    and ...;
    In particular we dont refernce the tablecolumn , but the QUERY-Parameter
    yield the second boolean value in the or-condition.
    The problem is that this condition ('&x_name' = '') dont use any index.
    thanks a lot for spending your time with this problem

    Try
    SELECT /*+ RULE */
    as your hint. I don't have the book with me, but this last weekend I read a section about your very problem. The book was a Oracle Press gold cover about Oracle 8i Performance tuning. If you e-mail me I can quote you the chapter when I get home Friday.

  • Function-Based Index enabling.

    Hi...
    I'm trying to create a function-based index along the lines of:
    CREATE INDEX x_ssn4
    ON table_y(SUBSTR(ssn,6,4))
    UNRECOVERABLE;
    ...so as to be able to query the final 4 digits of social security numbers. Problem is that the above elicits an ORA-00439 "feature not enabled" message. I'm running 8.1.6 and have tried setting the Oracle parameter QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED to 'TRUE' via an ALTER SESSION command, but to no avail.
    Anyone know how to 'turn the feature on'?
    Thanks, Rob

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rick Post:
    I've always done it by logging on as SYS and executing a 'grant query rewrite to myuser'.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Thanks... but turns out that the privilege is not really the issue, as the ALTER SESSION command works. I figured out that the problem was the setting for COMPATIBLE. It pointed to 8.0.0 instead of 8.1.x which is what was needed to permit function-based indexing.
    ~Rob
    null

  • Function-based index error due to fine-grained security

    Hi, i'm working on Oracle version 9.2.0.5.
    I'm trying to create a function-based index but i'm getting an error due to fine-grained security. I checked resource_view but if i'm not wrong I should have all necessary roles. I also added xdbadmin to this user to be sure.
    I tried also to alter my session but it didn't worked.
    Connected to Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.5.0
    Connected as test_ste
    SQL>
    SQL> create index fbidx_schede_xml
      2  on schede_progetti_xml p
      3  (p.PROGETTO.extract('/Project/Elenco_unita/Unita/Responsabile/Cognome/text()').getStringVal());
    create index fbidx_schede_xml
    on schede_progetti_xml p
    (p.PROGETTO.extract('/Project/Elenco_unita/Unita/Responsabile/Cognome/text()').getStringVal())
    ORA-28133: full table access is restricted by fine-grained security
    ORA-06512: at "SYS.XMLTYPE", line 0
    ORA-06512: at line 1
    SQL>
    SQL> alter session set query_rewrite_enabled = true;
    Session altered
    SQL> alter session set query_rewrite_integrity = trusted;
    Session altered
    SQL> create index fbidx_schede_xml
      2  on schede_progetti_xml p
      3  (p.PROGETTO.extract('/Project/Elenco_unita/Unita/Responsabile/Cognome/text()').getStringVal());
    create index fbidx_schede_xml
    on schede_progetti_xml p
    (p.PROGETTO.extract('/Project/Elenco_unita/Unita/Responsabile/Cognome/text()').getStringVal())
    ORA-28133: full table access is restricted by fine-grained security
    ORA-06512: at "SYS.XMLTYPE", line 0
    ORA-06512: at line 1
    SQL> select * from user_role_privs;
    USERNAME                       GRANTED_ROLE                   ADMIN_OPTION DEFAULT_ROLE OS_GRANTED
    TEST_STE                      CONNECT                        NO           YES          NO
    TEST_STE                      CTXAPP                         NO           YES          NO
    TEST_STE                      RESOURCE                       NO           YES          NO
    TEST_STE                      XDBADMIN                       NO           YES          NO
    SQL> This are ACL on my schema:
      <ACL>
        <acl description="Private:All privileges to OWNER only and not accessible to others" xmlns="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/acl.xsd" xmlns:dav="DAV:"
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/acl.xsd                           http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/acl.xsd">
          <ace>
            <principal>dav:owner</principal>
            <grant>true</grant>
            <privilege>
              <all/>
            </privilege>
          </ace>
        </acl>
      </ACL>I tried to create a similar function-based index on Oracle 10.2.0.3 without any problem and without touching any ACL, is an Oracle 9.2.0.5 problem?
    Thanks for your attention.

    I didn't really (production wise)work yet with VPD. I know a lot is based on DBMS_RLS and I guess (IF it is VPD related) it should be to hard to find in the doc's how you could check what is beyond your privileges. As a DBA I noticed that even the dba account SYSTEM isn't always allow to export the full content for the tables anymore.
    There is a privilege that grants you all access that you need, despite the fact that you are not allowed to read certain rows from a table. Look it up.
    In all, as I said, it looks like account is not allowed to see all data from a table. In that respect it sounds logical that you also are, in that case, not allowed to build a function based index on that data

  • Oracle 8i Function-based index

    Hi,
    i have problem with making Oracle8i to use function-based index. I am using version 8.1.6 Enterprise Edition.
    So here is the test I did
    CREATE INDEX first_name_index ON customer ( UPPER(first_name)) ;
    alter session set QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED = TRUE;
    alter session set QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY=TRUSTED;
    ANALYZE TABLE customer COMPUTE STATISTICS;
    alter index first_name_index compute statistics;
    Everything seemed to be as required by Oracle but it doesn't use this function-based index when I make
    select *
    from customer
    where upper(first_name) like 'J%';
    I test it on large table and with table with few hundred rows. I don't have NULLs in that field.
    Can anyone help me with this.

    I would not create an index to have it prepared for an ORDER BY. An index is quite costly in DML opperations and space as well. More, a function based index will be costlier as the function has to be called for every read and/or write.
    Do not forget that indexes a created for a direct access to data and not for sorting purposes.
    George

  • Function-based index, NOT NULL bug?

    ALTER SESSION SET OPTIMIZER_MODE = FIRST_ROWS_10;
    ALTER SESSION SET QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED = TRUE;
    CREATE TABLE xxx (code CHAR(6) NOT NULL);
    create index xxx_idx on xxx (upper(code));
    select * from xxx order by upper(code);
    -> ORA-03113: end-of-file on communication channel
    (Oracle 9.0.1, Windows 2000)

    I know it's quite a long-time that anyone replied this post, but I just need to report our attempts to workaround that.
    Dropping function-based indexes in primary database, just before creation of Logical Dataguard hasn't solved our problem, neither dropping indexes in logical database.
    In my opinion and after some docs in metalink, I think there's no way to solve it.
    Or you drop them or you migrate to 10g.
    Regards.

  • Impdp not importing function based index correctly.

    We noticed that a process running in our develop database was running much faster than in the production database. After investigating we found that on the development database the process was using an index on the main large table and on the production database the index was ignored and full table scans of the large table were being used.
    The data in the tables was the same, statistics were up-to-date, etc. Looking closer we saw that the index on the production database was function based because it had the DESC keyword on one column in the index. On the development database all columns of the index were ASC and thus it was a "normal" index. This was very confusing since we had just refreshed the development database from production using expdp/impdp. I ran impdp with the sqlfiles option to capture the DDL from the export file for the index in question from the production database:
    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX "SYSADM"."PS_SF_1098_ITEM" ON "SYSADM"."PS_SF_1098_ITEM" ("EMPLID", "SF_TIN", "CALENDAR_YEAR", "SEQ_NO" DESC, "DTL_SEQ_NBR")
    PCTFREE 10 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255
    STORAGE(INITIAL 40960 NEXT 1048576 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
    PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
    TABLESPACE "PSINDEX" ;
    I then dropped the table/index in the development database and reimported just this one table. Sure enough, the index wasn't created as a function based index (no DESC keyword on SEQ_NO column):
    CREATE UNIQUE INDEX "SYSADM"."PS_SF_1098_ITEM" ON "SYSADM"."PS_SF_1098_ITEM" ("EMPLID", "SF_TIN", "CALENDAR_YEAR", "SEQ_NO", "DTL_SEQ_NBR")
    PCTFREE 10 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 COMPUTE STATISTICS
    STORAGE(INITIAL 40960 NEXT 1048576 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
    PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
    TABLESPACE "PSINDEX" ;
    I've researched this extensively and can't find any information on why this is happening. Any ideas before I open a SR?
    BTW.... version is 11.1.0.7 patchset 31 on Windows Server 2003. Both dev and prod environments are identical.
    Thanks,
    Dan

    Working on something else I noticed the following two "hidden" init.ora parameters in both my dev and production databases:
    *._disable_function_based_index=TRUE
    *._ignore_desc_in_index=TRUE
    The first parameter explains why the index (function based) was being ignored in my production database. The second explains why the index is created without the DESC keyword in my dev database from an export from my prod database. I guess you do learn something new every day :)
    These databases are used by Peoplesoft applications and I found several posts saying that function based indexes created by Peoplesoft were causing performance and/or data validity problems and users were instructed to set the above parameters so the FIB's weren't used. So, everything is working as expected/designed. I will contact Peoplesoft Tech Support to see if users are still encouraged to set the above parameters.
    Dan

  • Importing error: related to function-based indexes?

    I've come across a strange error. I've got a user that has an export dump file who wants me to import the data into a new database. (Its an Oracle 10G database.)
    When I use the 'imp' command, the table import completes successfully, but I end up receiving the following warnings:
    IMP-00003: oracle error 942 encountered
    ORA-00942: table or view does not exist
    IMP-00017: following statement failed with ORACLE error 942
    "CREATE INDEX "X" on "Y" (TO_CHAR("Z",'yyyymmdd')) P"
    "CTFREE 10 INITRANS 2 MAXTRANS 255 STORAGE(INITIAL 3145728 FREELISTS 1 FREEL"
    "IST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT) TABLESPACE "TBSPC" LOGGING"
    The table itself seems to have been imported correctly; and all data rows exist. Its just the index that isn't being imported/rebuilt. (Other indexes on the same table were imported properly.)
    The only thing that I could find that seems odd is that this index uses functions (the "TO_CHAR" in the index above). All of the other indexes on the table refer to basic fields. And I can rebuild the index manually.
    Is the 'imp' command able to handle function-based indexes? Is there some parameter than I need to set to allow it to import these indexes?
    (I know the more efficient thing to do would be to do an import with no indexes and rebuild them later...)
    Edited by: user588235 on Dec 9, 2009 5:16 PM

    Function based indexes should be supported. If it is exported, then it should be able to be imported. This just seems like a weird case. Have you tried to create a different table and then create a function based index on that table then see if exp/imp work?Yes, I have tried creating new versions of the tables (both with and without function-based indexes).
    During my tests, I found that I can recreate the problem if I create the table in Oracle 9 and import it into Oracle 10; the problem doesn't occur when importing/exporting between Oracle9->Oracle9 or Oracle10->Oracle10. (However, the user told me that this was an export from Oracle 10.)
    One other thing: I've noticed that if, instead of importing into a user account, I import into the system account, it works with no problems. For example:
    imp userid='sys/xyz as sysdba' file=mydata.dmp fromuser=use1 touser=use2 ->Results in warnings while reading indexes
    imp userid='sys/xyz as sysdba' file=mydata.dmp fromuser=use1 touser=sys ->works with no warning
    This makes me suspect that its a problem with the permissions that have been granted. (I've granted 'create any index' and 'query rewrite' to the user account however.)
    Not to change the issue, but since this is 10g, have you tried using datapump to expdp/impdp the same information?Might be an option; problem is, I'm dealing with a legacy system that was set up to use 'imp/exp', so altering backup and restore methods will require a lot of work.

  • Dilemma regarding function based indexes

    Hello,
    I have a dilemma regarding function based indexes.
    I have read Note:66277.1 on the Metalink discussing thoroughly the subject of “Concepts and Usage of Function Based Indexes”.
    This doc was revised on 30-May-2006 so I was sure it referred to 9i and 10g.
    This doc as well as other docs on the web claim that in order to use FBI (function based indexes) one must set the following parameters (can be done also at session level)
    QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED = TRUE
    QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY = TRUSTED
    Also the schema that is owner of the FBI should be granted with QUERY REWRITE sys priv and statistics should be collected since FBI is usable only by CBO (cost based optimizer).
    I have tested it and it works, my problem was that it worked
    (1)     Without granting the QUERY REWRITE to the owning schema.
    (2)     QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED was set to false.
    (3)     QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY was set to enforced.
    I have conducted my tests on 9.2.0.6 and found no evidence in the docs (10g) saying the above is required or not.
    I found at http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:1197786003246 the following:
    “Oracle9iR2 relaxed this so that the FBI on the builtin function may be used.”
    so I have tested it with my own function:
    create or replace function upper2( p_str in varchar2 ) return
    varchar2 DETERMINISTIC
    as
    begin
    return upper(p_str);
    end;
    =>
    Also (yes you guessed right), without any privilege granted nor parameter setting the optimizer picked my FBI.
    Can anyone refer me to a place documenting this behavior as a correct one?
    Other comments?
    Regards,
    Tal Olier ([email protected])

    Got an answer from Oracle support:
    19-DEC-06 18:04:31 GMT
    (Update for record id(s): 101017780,101017796)
    QUESTION
    ========
    Questions about the options required in 10g related to Function Based Indexes, and the correct
    behaviors associated with them.
    ANSWER
    ======
    For 10g:
    These requirements are no longer true in 10g. This has already clarified by
    development in the Bug 3999326 which is available on metalink.
    For 9I:
    For the creation of a function-based index in your own schema, you must be
    granted the QUERY REWRITE system privileges. To create the index in another
    schema or on another schema's tables, you must have the CREATE ANY INDEX
    and GLOBAL QUERY REWRITE privileges.
    You must have the following initialization parameters defined to create a
    function-based index:
    QUERY_REWRITE_INTEGRITY set to TRUSTED
    QUERY_REWRITE_ENABLED set to TRUE
    COMPATIBLE set to 8.1.0.0.0 or a greater value
    Additionally, to use a function-based index:
    The table must be analyzed after the index is created.
    The query must be guaranteed not to need any NULL values from the indexed
    expression, since NULL values are not stored in indexes.
    However, in 9.2.0.4 patchset, these prerequisites do not apply and one can
    create function-based indexes without any of the above to be true. This is not
    the case in 9.2.0.3, not in 8.1.7.
    Reference: Oracle 9i R2 Administrators Guide
    So as mentioned above that is why you didnt have any errors
    Please back to us if any further information is need, and we will be pleased to
    assist you further.
    Thank You,
    Best Regards,
    Mina Anes

  • URGENT - Function based indexes

    Hi,
    I have a table with huge amount of data and hence I have created
    a function-based (Upper) index on one of the character NOT
    NULL field which is very likely to be used for query purposes.
    First of all though I can create ordinary normal field based
    indexes in my user I cannot create a function-based index, why
    That had to be created thru SYS user. Secondly I my query
    invloving this function is not using the index and instead doing
    a full-table scan. Problem outlined below :
    Table : PLZPOST, USER / OWNER : PARTNER, FIELD : ORT
    INDEX created on UPPER(ORT) in SYS user -
    Create index upper_plz_ort on partner.plzpost (upper(ort))
    When I give any of the following queries instead of using the
    resp. index as mentioned in Oracle DOC it just does a full table
    scan (checked thru Explain Plan) :
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) is not null;
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) like upper('saar%')
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) = 'SAARBRUECKEN'
    etc etc
    If anyone has used Function-based indexes in Oracle 8i could you
    please tell me where am I going wrong. Is it because my Table
    belongs to PARTNER and Index to SYS (tried running the above
    queries under SYS user also but still did not work) ?? If so how
    can I grant access on an Index to PARTNER from SYS ??
    Your help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance,
    Cheers
    Rashmi
    null

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rashmi Rungta ([email protected]):
    Hi,
    I have a table with huge amount of data and hence I have created
    a function-based (Upper) index on one of the character NOT
    NULL field which is very likely to be used for query purposes.
    First of all though I can create ordinary normal field based
    indexes in my user I cannot create a function-based index, why
    That had to be created thru SYS user. Secondly I my query
    invloving this function is not using the index and instead doing
    a full-table scan. Problem outlined below :
    Table : PLZPOST, USER / OWNER : PARTNER, FIELD : ORT
    INDEX created on UPPER(ORT) in SYS user -
    Create index upper_plz_ort on partner.plzpost (upper(ort))
    When I give any of the following queries instead of using the
    resp. index as mentioned in Oracle DOC it just does a full table
    scan (checked thru Explain Plan) :
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) is not null;
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) like upper('saar%')
    select * from PLZPOST where upper(ort) = 'SAARBRUECKEN'
    etc etc
    If anyone has used Function-based indexes in Oracle 8i could you
    please tell me where am I going wrong. Is it because my Table
    belongs to PARTNER and Index to SYS (tried running the above
    queries under SYS user also but still did not work) ?? If so how
    can I grant access on an Index to PARTNER from SYS ??
    Your help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance,
    Cheers
    Rashmi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    null

  • Function Based Indexes - negative performance

    Has anyone run across any cases where they have had issues with Function Based Indexes negatively impacting performance??
    We are trying to use function based indexes in 9i (NLS_SORT=GENERIC_BASELETTER) and 10g (NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI) for case insensitivity.
    We thought this was a decent solution until recently when testing with larger datasets. Any info is appreciated.
    Thanks,

    Just to clarify rreynoldson's first point:
    All indexes will negatively impact inserts. Indexes, including function-based indexes, may or may not improve update and delete performance depending on whether the overhead of maintaining the index outweighs the benefit of being able to use the index to find the row(s) to update relatively quickly.
    For user564260:
    Assuming those parameters are set, make sure that you've gathered statistics on the function based index. If that doesn't resolve the problem, can you post a small test case that demonstrates the problem where you
    - Create the table
    - Create the indexes
    - Populate it with data
    - Run the query that you'd expect to use the FBI
    - Post the explain plan
    that would help us immensely.
    Justin

Maybe you are looking for

  • The DbEnv memery missing in win7 x64(may be a berkeley'Env bug in x64)

    I am a newer programer in Berkeley,this is my first use it. I create a BDB for png image, about 40gb, the key is used ACE_UINT64, the value is ACE_Message_Block. I used LoadRunner create 100 user to get the image by my program. It is correctly in win

  • File type

    hii what is the meaning of file type in ws_upload function module for excel files what will be the file type

  • Nano will not work unless plugged in

    Hello. I have searched through the help section and through the forums, but I can not seem to crack this problem. My inlaws told me there iPod nano would not work anymore. They simply told me that they could not get it to come on. I thought I could f

  • One Time Vendor in F110

    Hi, 1) In PO, under address tab, we entered a generic name and address for one time vendor. 2) In IV (MIRO), we create multiple invoices for the PO under different payees by changing the one-time vendor's name and address. 3) In payment (F110), we cr

  • Enhanced function module not working

    Hi guys, There's a requirement in my project to add new fields to the standard ESS > Personal Data iView and as well as add in additional validations along with the standard validations. I've thus asked an ABAP developer to - add in the new fields to