Slow Query Using index. Fast with full table Scan.

Hi;
(Thanks for the links)
Here's my question correctly formated.
The query:
SELECT count(1)
from ehgeoconstru  ec
where ec.TYPE='BAR' 
AND ( ec.birthDate <= TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') )  
and deathdate is null
and substr(ec.strgfd, 1, length('[CIMText')) <> '[CIMText'Runs on 32 seconds!
Same query, but with one extra where clause:
SELECT count(1)
from ehgeoconstru  ec
where ec.TYPE='BAR' 
and  ( (ec.contextVersion = 'REALWORLD')     --- ADDED HERE
AND ( ec.birthDate <= TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') ) ) 
and deathdate is null
and substr(ec.strgfd, 1, length('[CIMText')) <> '[CIMText'This runs in 400 seconds.
It should return data from one table, given the conditions.
The version of the database is Oracle9i Release 9.2.0.7.0
These are the parameters relevant to the optimizer:
SQL> show parameter optimizer
NAME                                 TYPE        VALUE
optimizer_dynamic_sampling           integer     1
optimizer_features_enable            string      9.2.0
optimizer_index_caching              integer     99
optimizer_index_cost_adj             integer     10
optimizer_max_permutations           integer     2000
optimizer_mode                       string      CHOOSE
SQL> Here is the output of EXPLAIN PLAN for the first fast query:
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
| Id  | Operation                     |  Name               | Rows  | Bytes | Cost  |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |                         |           |       |       |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE       |                         |           |       |       |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL   | EHCONS            |       |       |       |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
   2 - filter(SUBSTR("EC"."strgfd",1,8)<>'[CIMText' AND "EC"."DEATHDATE"
              IS NULL AND "EC"."BIRTHDATE"<=TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'yyyy
-mm-dd
              hh24:mi:ss') AND "EC"."TYPE"='BAR')
Note: rule based optimizationHere is the output of EXPLAIN PLAN for the slow query:
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
   |       |
|   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE              |                             |       |
   |       |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| ehgeoconstru      |       |
   |       |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN          | ehgeoconstru_VSN  |       |
   |       |
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter(SUBSTR("EC"."strgfd",1,8)<>'[CIMText' AND "EC"."DEATHDATE" IS
NULL AND "EC"."TYPE"='BAR')
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
   3 - access("EC"."CONTEXTVERSION"='REALWORLD' AND "EC"."BIRTHDATE"<=TO_DATE('2
009-10-06
              11:52:12', 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss'))
       filter("EC"."BIRTHDATE"<=TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:
mi:ss'))
Note: rule based optimizationThe TKPROF output for this slow statement is:
TKPROF: Release 9.2.0.7.0 - Production on Tue Nov 17 14:46:32 2009
Copyright (c) 1982, 2002, Oracle Corporation.  All rights reserved.
Trace file: gen_ora_3120.trc
Sort options: prsela  exeela  fchela 
count    = number of times OCI procedure was executed
cpu      = cpu time in seconds executing
elapsed  = elapsed time in seconds executing
disk     = number of physical reads of buffers from disk
query    = number of buffers gotten for consistent read
current  = number of buffers gotten in current mode (usually for update)
rows     = number of rows processed by the fetch or execute call
SELECT count(1)
from ehgeoconstru  ec
where ec.TYPE='BAR'
and  ( (ec.contextVersion = 'REALWORLD')
AND ( ec.birthDate <= TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') ) )
and deathdate is null
and substr(ec.strgfd, 1, length('[CIMText')) <> '[CIMText'
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        2      0.00     538.12     162221    1355323          0           1
total        4      0.00     538.12     162221    1355323          0           1
Misses in library cache during parse: 0
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 153 
Rows     Row Source Operation
      1  SORT AGGREGATE
  27747   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID OBJ#(73959)
2134955    INDEX RANGE SCAN OBJ#(73962) (object id 73962)
alter session set sql_trace=true
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.02          0          0          0           0
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        1      0.00       0.02          0          0          0           0
Misses in library cache during parse: 0
Misses in library cache during execute: 1
Optimizer goal: CHOOSE
Parsing user id: 153 
OVERALL TOTALS FOR ALL NON-RECURSIVE STATEMENTS
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      2      0.00       0.02          0          0          0           0
Fetch        2      0.00     538.12     162221    1355323          0           1
total        5      0.00     538.15     162221    1355323          0           1
Misses in library cache during parse: 0
Misses in library cache during execute: 1
OVERALL TOTALS FOR ALL RECURSIVE STATEMENTS
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Misses in library cache during parse: 0
    2  user  SQL statements in session.
    0  internal SQL statements in session.
    2  SQL statements in session.
Trace file: gen_ora_3120.trc
Trace file compatibility: 9.02.00
Sort options: prsela  exeela  fchela 
       2  sessions in tracefile.
       2  user  SQL statements in trace file.
       0  internal SQL statements in trace file.
       2  SQL statements in trace file.
       2  unique SQL statements in trace file.
      94  lines in trace file.Edited by: PauloSMO on 17/Nov/2009 4:21
Edited by: PauloSMO on 17/Nov/2009 7:07
Edited by: PauloSMO on 17/Nov/2009 7:38 - Changed title to be more correct.

Although your optimizer_mode is choose, it appears that there are no statistics gathered on ehgeoconstru. The lack of cost estimate and estimated row counts from each step of the plan, and the "Note: rule based optimization" at the end of both plans would tend to confirm this.
Optimizer_mode choose means that if statistics are gathered then it will use the CBO, but if no statistics are present in any of the tables in the query, then the Rule Based Optimizer will be used. The RBO tends to be index happy at the best of times. I'm guessing that the index ehgeoconstru_VSN has contextversion as the leading column and also includes birthdate.
You can either gather statistics on the table (if all of the other tables have statistics) using dbms_stats.gather_table_stats, or hint the query to use a full scan instead of the index. Another alternative would be to apply a function or operation against the contextversion to preclude the use of the index. something like this:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM ehgeoconstru  ec
WHERE ec.type='BAR' and 
      ec.contextVersion||'' = 'REALWORLD'
      ec.birthDate <= TO_DATE('2009-10-06 11:52:12', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') and
      deathdate is null and
      SUBSTR(ec.strgfd, 1, LENGTH('[CIMText')) <> '[CIMText'or perhaps UPPER(ec.contextVersion) if that would not change the rows returned.
John

Similar Messages

  • Source(oracle 11g) with oracle 8i using db link with full table scan

    Hi,
    I'm using oracle 8i version and i'm facing some issue  while using DBlinks.
    SourceDB1 I'm using oracle 8i(Source)
    select *  from tab1
    tabl where id in
    (select id from stab1@SourceDB1  where updt_seq_num > 167720 and work_grp_id in (2900,2901))
    For this, I could able to retrive the data.
    but, today we have migrated one of our source from oracle 8i to oracle 11G
    when I'm executing
    select *  from tab2
    tabl where id in
    (select id from stab2@SourceDB2  where updt_seq_num > 167720 and work_grp_id in (2900,2901))
    we couldn't able to retrive data as it's scaning full table scan.
    when oracle 8i source it's scanning using INDEX scan but if the source oracle 11 h it's scanning full table scan.
    Could you please advise how to resolve this issue for source oracle 11i ?
    Please let us know, if you need any information.

    Blocks that are read via full table scans are stored in the buffer cache, but putting them at the MRU end ensures that they don't push the rest of the useful blocks out of the buffer cache. In your example, if you're full scanning a 2 GB table (T) with a 500 MB buffer cache, the first block that is read from T is put at the MRU end of the buffer cache, displacing the previous block that was at the MRU end of the cache. The next block that is read from T is also put at the MRU end of the buffer cache, displacing the previous block that was at the MRU end of the cache, so block #2 from T displaces block #1 from T. So, you're reading 2 GB of data, but you're constantly purging the older blocks, so you're only really using that last block of the buffer cache.
    Justin

  • Why full index scan is faster than full table scan?

    Hi friends,
    In the where clause of a query,if we give a column that contains index on it,then oracle uses index to search data rather than a TABLE ACCESS FULL Operation.
    Why index searching is faster?

    Sometimes it is faster to use index and sometimes it is faster to use full table scan. If your statistics are up to date Oracle is far more likely to get it right. If the query can be satisfied entirely from the index, then an index scan will almost always be faster as there are fewer blocks to read in the index than there would be if the table itself were scanned. However if the query must extract data from the table when that data is not in te index, then the index scan will be faster only if a small percentage of the rows are to be returned. Consiter the case of an index where 40% of the rows are returned. Assume the index values are distributed evenly among the data blocks. Assume 10 rows will fit in each data block thus 4 of the 10 rows will match the condition. Then the average datablock will be fetched 4 times since most of the time adjacent index entries will not be in the same block. The number of single datablock fetches will be about 4 times the number of datablocks. Compare this to a full table scan that does multiblock reads. Far fewer reads are required to read the entire table. Though it depends on the number of rows per block, a general rule is any query returning more than about 10% of a table is faster NOT using an index.

  • Associative Arrays, Indexes vs. Full Table Scans

    Hello,
    I just started using ODP.Net to connect my .Net Web Service to our Oracle Database. The reason why I switched to ODP.Net is support for arrays. If I wanted to pass in arrays to the procedure I had to pass it in through a varchar2 in a CSV formatted string.
    ex. "123,456,789"
    So now I'm using ODP.net, passing in PL/SQL Associative Arrays then converting those arrays to nested tables to use within queries.
    ex.
    OPEN OUT_CURSOR FOR
    SELECT COLUMN1, COLUMN2
    WHERE COLUMN_ID IN (SELECT ID FROM TABLE(CAST(ASSOC_ARR_TO_NESTED(IN_ASSOC_ARR) AS NESTED_TBL_TYPE)))
    It uses the array successfully however what it doesn't do is use the index on the table. Running the same query without arrays uses the index.
    My colleague who works more on the Oracle side has posted this issue in the database general section (link below). I'm posting here because it does seem that it is tied to ODP.Net.
    performance - index not used when call from service
    Has anyone ever experienced this before?

    You have to use a cardinality hint to force Oracle to use the index:
    /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */See How to use OracleParameter whith the IN Operator of select statement

  • Star Query Full Table Scan

    Hi, Folks:
    I have a complex SQL statement that runs very slowly.
    Following is the statement:
    SELECT
    T3.POSITION_ID,
    T12.PR_POSTN_ID,
    T12.PR_TERR_ID,
    T12.PR_REP_MANL_FLG,
    T9.CREATED,
    T10.PR_EMP_ID,
    T9.MODIFICATION_NUM,
    T12.DEDUP_TOKEN,
    T12.LOCATION_LEVEL,
    T12.PR_PRTNR_OU_ID,
    T12.PR_OU_TYPE_ID,
    T12.PAR_DUNS_NUM,
    T3.ACCNT_NAME,
    T11.ATTRIB_16,
    T6.PAR_ROW_ID,
    T3.INVSTR_FLG,
    T6.ROW_ID,
    T12.DUNS_NUM,
    T12.BU_ID,
    T10.ROW_ID,
    T2.LAST_NAME,
    T3.SRV_PROVDR_FLG,
    T12.X_PR_MERCH_NBR_ID,
    T3.ROW_STATUS,
    T12.NAME,
    T11.PAR_ROW_ID,
    T6.LAST_UPD_BY,
    T6.MODIFICATION_NUM,
    T3.PRIORITY_FLG,
    T10.NAME,
    T3.ASGN_SYS_FLG,
    T9.PROFIT,
    T12.PR_BL_ADDR_ID,
    T12.PR_REP_ASGN_TYPE,
    T9.LAST_UPD_BY,
    T3.FACILITY_FLG,
    T12.LAST_UPD_BY,
    T12.PR_SHIP_ADDR_ID,
    T11.MODIFICATION_NUM,
    T11.LAST_UPD_BY,
    T5.LOGIN,
    T3.ASGN_MANL_FLG
    FROM
    S_ADDR_ORG T1,
    S_CONTACT T2,
    S_ACCNT_POSTN T3,
    S_ORG_INT T4,
    S_EMPLOYEE T5,
    S_ORG_EXT_FNX T6,
    S_ORG_SYN T7,
    S_INDUST T8,
    S_ORG_EXT_T T9,
    S_POSTN T10,
    S_ORG_EXT_X T11,
    S_ORG_EXT T12
    WHERE
    T12.BU_ID = T4.ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.PR_CON_ID = T2.ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.ROW_ID = T7.OU_ID AND
    T12.ROW_ID = T11.PAR_ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.ROW_ID = T6.PAR_ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.ROW_ID = T9.PAR_ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.PR_INDUST_ID = T8.ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.PR_ADDR_ID = T1.ROW_ID (+) AND
    T12.PR_POSTN_ID = T10.ROW_ID AND
    T12.PR_POSTN_ID = T3.POSITION_ID AND
    T12.ROW_ID = T3.OU_EXT_ID AND
    T10.PR_EMP_ID = T5.ROW_ID (+) AND
    (T12.X_BMO_CUST_FLG = 'Y') AND
    (T7.NAME IS NULL );
    ***** SQL Statement Execute Time: 31.703 seconds *****
    I do a explain plan and found the table S_ORG_EXT (T12)
    get a full table scan.
    But I found the table S_ORG_EXT did have lots of indexes
    build on each column shown in the where statement.
    Our database use RULE base optimizer and it should use
    index instead of full table scan.
    Then, I look at this SQL and realize it is a star query.
    One more thing is that the table S_ORG_SYN (T7) defined
    the column NAME as NOT NULL. If the query process, it
    should return no row.
    But I still don't know for what reason the Oracle use
    full table scan and ignore the S_ORG_SYN.NAME should be
    NOT NULL
    If I want to avoid the full table scan, how can I do by
    not switching to COST base optimizer mode ?
    Thanks,
    Ke

    Michael:
    A nice explanantion. In my experience, in versions up to 8.1.7, the RBO seems to be faster in the large majority of queries than the CBO. In our payroll application (version 8.0.5), removing statistics cut the time for the calculation run from 6.5 hours to under 2.
    The CBO seems to be significantly faster in 9i. We only have one application currently running in a 9.0.1 database. In this app, a large stored procedure took about 2 minutes to run when there were no statistics, and about 10 seconds after we analyzed the tables.
    As more of our vendors migrate to 9 (we just got the last vendor migrated off 7.3 to 8.0.6 a couple of months ago), I may become a bigger fan of the CBO. John,
    I remember having a discussion with you about the CBO in a thread once and am aware of your opinion of the CBO. My opinion has been test which works for you RBO or CBO - in our case we verified that CBO worked better for us. Anyway, I was searching metalink and it looks like you'll be forced to become a "bigger fan" of the CBO after 9i release 2. This is from part of Doc ID 189702.1 on metalink:
    The rule-based optimizer (RBO) will be no longer be a valid optimization choice when Oracle9i is de-supported. The release after Oracle9i
    (referred to in this article as Oracle10i) will only support the cost-based optimizer (CBO). Hence Oracle9i Release 2 is the last releases to
    contain the RBO. Partners and customers should certify their applications with the CBO before that time.
    ...but of course Oracle has been warning people of the demise of the RBO for some time.
    Al

  • Preventing Discoverer using Full Table Scans with Decode in a View

    Hi Forum,
    Hope you are can help, it involves a performance issues when creating a Report / Query in Discoverer.
    I have a Discoverer Report that currently takes less than 5 seconds to run. After I add a condition to bring back Batch Status that = ‘Posted’ we cancelled the query after reaching 20 minutes as this is way too long. If I remove the condition the query time goes back to less than 5 seconds. Changing the condition to Batch Status that = ‘Unposted’ returns the query in seconds.
    I’ve been doing some digging and have found the database view that is linked to the Journal Batches folder in Discoverer. See at end of post.
    I think the problem is with the column using DECODE. When querying the column in TOAD the value of ‘P’ is returned. But in discoverer the condition is done on the value ‘Posted’. I’m not too sure how DECODE works, but think this could be the causing some sort of issue with Full Table Scans.
    Any idea how do we get around this?
    SELECT
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.JE_BATCH_ID,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.NAME,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.SET_OF_BOOKS_ID,
    GL_SET_OF_BOOKS.NAME,
    DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.STATUS,
    '+', 'Unable to validate or create CTA',
    '+*', 'Was unable to validate or create CTA',
    '-','Invalid or inactive rounding differences account in journal entry',
    '-*', 'Modified invalid or inactive rounding differences account in journal entry',
    '<', 'Showing sequence assignment failure',
    '<*', 'Was showing sequence assignment failure',
    '>', 'Showing cutoff rule violation',
    '>*', 'Was showing cutoff rule violation',
    'A', 'Journal batch failed funds reservation',
    'A*', 'Journal batch previously failed funds reservation',
    'AU', 'Showing batch with unopened period',
    'B', 'Showing batch control total violation',
    'B*', 'Was showing batch control total violation',
    'BF', 'Showing batch with frozen or inactive budget',
    'BU', 'Showing batch with unopened budget year',
    'C', 'Showing unopened reporting period',
    'C*', 'Was showing unopened reporting period',
    'D', 'Selected for posting to an unopened period',
    'D*', 'Was selected for posting to an unopened period',
    'E', 'Showing no journal entries for this batch',
    'E*', 'Was showing no journal entries for this batch',
    'EU', 'Showing batch with unopened encumbrance year',
    'F', 'Showing unopened reporting encumbrance year',
    'F*', 'Was showing unopened reporting encumbrance year',
    'G', 'Showing journal entry with invalid or inactive suspense account',
    'G*', 'Was showing journal entry with invalid or inactive suspense account',
    'H', 'Showing encumbrance journal entry with invalid or inactive reserve account',
    'H*', 'Was showing encumbrance journal entry with invalid or inactive reserve account',
    'I', 'In the process of being posted',
    'J', 'Showing journal control total violation',
    'J*', 'Was showing journal control total violation',
    'K', 'Showing unbalanced intercompany journal entry',
    'K*', 'Was showing unbalanced intercompany journal entry',
    'L', 'Showing unbalanced journal entry by account category',
    'L*', 'Was showing unbalanced journal entry by account category',
    'M', 'Showing multiple problems preventing posting of batch',
    'M*', 'Was showing multiple problems preventing posting of batch',
    'N', 'Journal produced error during intercompany balance processing',
    'N*', 'Journal produced error during intercompany balance processing',
    'O', 'Unable to convert amounts into reporting currency',
    'O*', 'Was unable to convert amounts into reporting currency',
    'P', 'Posted',
    'Q', 'Showing untaxed journal entry',
    'Q*', 'Was showing untaxed journal entry',
    'R', 'Showing unbalanced encumbrance entry without reserve account',
    'R*', 'Was showing unbalanced encumbrance entry without reserve account',
    'S', 'Already selected for posting',
    'T', 'Showing invalid period and conversion information for this batch',
    'T*', 'Was showing invalid period and conversion information for this batch',
    'U', 'Unposted',
    'V', 'Journal batch is unapproved',
    'V*', 'Journal batch was unapproved',
    'W', 'Showing an encumbrance journal entry with no encumbrance type',
    'W*', 'Was showing an encumbrance journal entry with no encumbrance type',
    'X', 'Showing an unbalanced journal entry but suspense not allowed',
    'X*', 'Was showing an unbalanced journal entry but suspense not allowed',
    'Z', 'Showing invalid journal entry lines or no journal entry lines',
    'Z*', 'Was showing invalid journal entry lines or no journal entry lines', NULL ),
    DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.ACTUAL_FLAG, 'A', 'Actual', 'B', 'Budget', 'E', 'Encumbrance', NULL ),
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.DEFAULT_PERIOD_NAME,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.POSTED_DATE,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.DATE_CREATED,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.DESCRIPTION,
    DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.AVERAGE_JOURNAL_FLAG, 'N', 'Standard', 'Y', 'Average', NULL ),
    DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.BUDGETARY_CONTROL_STATUS, 'F', 'Failed', 'I', 'In Process', 'N', 'N/A', 'P', 'Passed', 'R', 'Required', NULL ),
    DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.APPROVAL_STATUS_CODE, 'A', 'Approved', 'I', 'In Process', 'J', 'Rejected', 'R', 'Required', 'V','Validation Failed','Z', 'N/A',NULL ),
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.CONTROL_TOTAL,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.RUNNING_TOTAL_DR,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.RUNNING_TOTAL_CR,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.RUNNING_TOTAL_ACCOUNTED_DR,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.RUNNING_TOTAL_ACCOUNTED_CR,
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.PARENT_JE_BATCH_ID,
    JOURNAL_BATCH2.NAME
    FROM
    GL_JE_BATCHES JOURNAL_BATCH1,
    GL_JE_BATCHES JOURNAL_BATCH2,
    GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS
    GL_SET_OF_BOOKS
    WHERE
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.PARENT_JE_BATCH_ID = JOURNAL_BATCH2.JE_BATCH_ID (+) AND
    JOURNAL_BATCH1.SET_OF_BOOKS_ID = GL_SET_OF_BOOKS.SET_OF_BOOKS_ID AND
    GL_SECURITY_PKG.VALIDATE_ACCESS( JOURNAL_BATCH1.SET_OF_BOOKS_ID ) = 'TRUE' WITH READ ONLY
    Thanks,
    Lance

    Discoverer created it's own SQL.
    Please see below the SQL Inspector Plan:
    Before Condition
    SELECT STATEMENT
    SORT GROUP BY
    VIEW SYS
    SORT GROUP BY
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS
    AND-EQUAL
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_N2
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_N1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES
    INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_N1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL_U1
    INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_NORM_HIER_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_LINES
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_LINES_N1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_HEADERS
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_DAILY_CONVERSION_TYPES_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_CATEGORIES_TL_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_BUDGET_VERSIONS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_ENCUMBRANCE_TYPES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_BATCHES
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_PERIODS
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_PERIODS_U1
    After Condition
    SELECT STATEMENT
    SORT GROUP BY
    VIEW SYS
    SORT GROUP BY
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS
    NESTED LOOPS OUTER
    NESTED LOOPS
    TABLE ACCESS FULL GL.GL_JE_BATCHES
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_HEADERS
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_N1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_ENCUMBRANCE_TYPES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_DAILY_CONVERSION_TYPES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_BUDGET_VERSIONS_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_CATEGORIES_TL_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_LINES
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_LINES_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_PERIODS
    INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_PERIODS_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES
    INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_N1
    INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_NORM_HIER_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL_U1
    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
    _________________________________

  • How to avoid full Table scan when using Rule based optimizer (Oracle817)

    1. We have a Oracle 8.1.7 DB, and the optimizer_mode is set to "RULE"
    2. There are three indexes on table cm_contract_supply, which is a large table having 28732830 Rows, and average row length 149 Bytes
    COLUMN_NAME INDEX_NAME
    PROGRESS_RECID XAK11CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COMPANY_CODE XIE1CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    CONTRACT_NUMBER XIE1CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COUNTRY_CODE XIE1CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    SUPPLY_TYPE_CODE XIE1CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    VERSION_NUMBER XIE1CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    CAMPAIGN_CODE XIF1290CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COMPANY_CODE XIF1290CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COUNTRY_CODE XIF1290CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    SUPPLIER_BP_ID XIF801CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COMMISSION_LETTER_CODE XIF803CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COMPANY_CODE XIF803CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COUNTRY_CODE XIF803CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COMPANY_CODE XPKCM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    CONTRACT_NUMBER XPKCM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    COUNTRY_CODE XPKCM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    SUPPLY_SEQUENCE_NUMBER XPKCM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    VERSION_NUMBER XPKCM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY
    3. We are querying the table for a particular contract_number and version_number. We want to avoid full table scan.
    SELECT /*+ INDEX(XAK11CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY) */
    rowid, pms.cm_contract_supply.*
    FROM pms.cm_contract_supply
    WHERE
    contract_number = '0000000000131710'
    AND version_number = 3;
    However despite of giving hint, query results are fetched after full table scan.
    Execution Plan
    0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=RULE (Cost=1182 Card=1 Bytes=742)
    1 0 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY' (Cost=1182 Card=1 Bytes=742)
    4. I have tried giving
    SELECT /*+ FIRST_ROWS + INDEX(XAK11CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY) */
    rowid, pms.cm_contract_supply.*
    FROM pms.cm_contract_supply
    WHERE
    contract_number = '0000000000131710'
    AND version_number = 3;
    and
    SELECT /*+ CHOOSE + INDEX(XAK11CM_CONTRACT_SUPPLY) */
    rowid, pms.cm_contract_supply.*
    FROM pms.cm_contract_supply
    WHERE
    contract_number = '0000000000131710'
    AND version_number = 3;
    But it does not work.
    Is there some way without changing optimizer mode and without creating an additional index, we can use the index instead of full table scan?

    David,
    Here is my test on a Oracle 10g database.
    SQL> create table mytable as select * from all_tables;
    Table created.
    SQL> set autot traceonly
    SQL> alter session set optimizer_mode = choose;
    Session altered.
    SQL> select count(*) from mytable;
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE
       1    0   SORT (AGGREGATE)
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'MYTABLE' (TABLE)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
             29  consistent gets
              0  physical reads
              0  redo size
            223  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            276  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              0  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processed
    SQL> analyze table mytable compute statistics;
    Table analyzed.
    SQL>  select count(*) from mytable
      2  ;
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=11 Card=1)
       1    0   SORT (AGGREGATE)
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'MYTABLE' (TABLE) (Cost=11 Card=1
              788)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
             29  consistent gets
              0  physical reads
              0  redo size
            222  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            276  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              0  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processed
    SQL> disconnect
    Disconnected from Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.1.0.2.0 - 64bit Production
    With the Partitioning, Oracle Label Security, OLAP and Data Mining options

  • Avod full table scan help...

    HI ,
    I have sql with some filter and all the have index. the table size is huge index is there in explain plan though index it's going for full table scan it's not recognizing index. i used index hint/*+ INDEX (SYM.SYM_DEPL,SYM.SYDB_DE_N18) */ though it's not recoginizing index in explian plan going for full table scan. and qury take more time.
    please help to resolve the issue and it should recognize index rather than full table scan..

    user13301356 wrote:
    HI ,
    I have sql with some filter and all the have index. the table size is huge index is there in explain plan though index it's going for full table scan it's not recognizing index. i used index hint/*+ INDEX (SYM.SYM_DEPL,SYM.SYDB_DE_N18) */ though it's not recoginizing index in explian plan going for full table scan. and qury take more time.
    please help to resolve the issue and it should recognize index rather than full table scan..What is database version? Are all columns in the table indexed? Copy and paste the query that you are executing.

  • Does Table Statistics collection have any effect on Full Table scan

    We are using SQL Parallelism in Oracle 10g 10.2.0.4 (3 node RAC ).Most of the the big tables are going for FTS.
    And these Table are truncated and loaded inside procedures and then used in next procedures in SELECT query.
    As there is no stats or stale STATS available , does this affect the FTS performance.

    Well, typically, it's a good idea to have up to date stats on your tables, so that the Optimiser has an idea what data is in the tables and can determine if an index or a full table scan is the best method of access. It doesn't necessarily remove full table scans, and a FTS is not necessarily a bad thing, but having up to date stats let's the optimiser choose what's best, based on the data, rather than making a wrong decision.

  • Slow queries and full table scans in spite of context index

    I have defined a USER_DATASTORE, which uses a PL/SQL procedure to compile data from several tables. The master table has 1.3 million rows, and one of the fields being joined is a CLOB field.
    The resulting token table has 65,000 rows, which seems about right.
    If I query the token table for a word, such as "ORACLE" in the token_text field, I see that the token_count is 139. This query returns instantly.
    The query against the master table is very slow, taking about 15 minutes to return the 139 rows.
    Example query:
    select hnd from master_table where contains(myindex,'ORACLE',1) > 0;
    I've run a sql_trace on this query, and it shows full table scans on both the master table and the DR$MYINDEX$I table. Why is it doing this, and how can I fix it?

    After looking at the tuning FAQ, I can see that this is doing a functional lookup instead of an indexed lookup. But why, when the rows are not constrained by any structural query, and how can I get it to instead to an indexed lookup?
    Thanks in advance,
    Annie

  • Why does not  a query go by index but FULL TABLE SCAN

    I have two tables;
    table 1 has 1400 rwos and more than 30 columns , one of them is named as 'site_code' , a index was created on this column;
    table 2 has more 150 rows than 20 column , this primary key is 'site_code' also.
    the two tables were analysed by dbms_stats.gather_table()...
    when I run the explain for the 2 sqls below:
    select * from table1 where site_code='XXXXXXXXXX';
    select * from table1 where site_code='XXXXXXXXXX';
    certainly the oracle explain report show that 'Index scan'
    but the problem raised that
    I try to explain the sql
    select *
    from table1,table2
    where 1.'site_code'=2.'site_code'
    the explain report that :
    select .....
    FULL Table1 Scan
    FULL Table2 Scan
    why......

    Nikolay Ivankin  wrote:
    BluShadow wrote:
    Nikolay Ivankin  wrote:
    Try to use hint, but I really doubt it will be faster.No, using hints should only be advised when investigating an issue, not recommended for production code, as it assumes that, as a developer, you know better than the Oracle Optimizer how the data is distributed in the data files, and how the data is going to grow and change over time, and how best to access that data for performance etc.Yes, you are absolutly right. But aren't we performing such an investigation, are we? ;-)The way you wrote it, made it sound that a hint would be the solution, not just something for investigation.
    select * from .. always performs full scan, so limit your query.No, select * will not always perform a full scan, that's just selecting all the columns.
    A select without a where clause or that has a where clause that has low selectivity will result in full table scans.But this is what I have ment.But not what you said.

  • Slow query due to large table and full table scan

    Hi,
    We have a large Oracle database, v 10g. Two of the tables in the database have over one million rows.
    We have a few queries which take a lot of time to execute. Not always though, it that seems when load is high the queries tend
    to take much longer. Average time may be 1 or 2 seconds, but maxtime can be up to 2 minutes.
    We have now used Oracle Grid to help us examine the queries. We have found that some of the queries require two or three full table scans.
    Two of the full table scans are of the two large tables mentioned above.
    This is an example query:
    SELECT table1.column, table2.column, table3.column
    FROM table1
    JOIN table2 on table1.table2Id = table2.id
    LEFT JOIN table3 on table2.table3id = table3.id
    WHERE table1.id IN(
    SELECT id
    FROM (
    (SELECT a.*, rownum rnum FROM(
    SELECT table1.id
    FROM table1,
    table2,
    table3
    WHERE
    table1.table2id = table2.id
    AND
    table2.table3id IS NULL OR table2.table3id = :table3IdParameter
    ) a
    WHERE rownum <= :end))
    WHERE rnum >= :start
    Table1 and table2 are the large tables in this example. This query starts two full table scans on those tables.
    Can we avoid this? We have, what we think are, the correct indexes.
    /best regards, Håkan

    >
    Hi Håkan - welcome to the forum.
    We have a large Oracle database, v 10g. Two of the tables in the database have over one million rows.
    We have a few queries which take a lot of time to execute. Not always though, it that seems when load is high the queries tend
    to take much longer. Average time may be 1 or 2 seconds, but maxtime can be up to 2 minutes.
    We have now used Oracle Grid to help us examine the queries. We have found that some of the queries require two or three full table scans.
    Two of the full table scans are of the two large tables mentioned above.
    This is an example query:Firstly, please read the forum FAQ - top right of page.
    Please format your SQL using tags [code /code].
    In order to help us to help you.
    Please post table structures - relevant (i.e. joined, FK, PK fields only) in the form - note use of code tags - we can just run table create script.
    CREATE TABLE table1
      Field1  Type1,
      Field2  Type2,
    FieldN  TypeN
    );Then give us some table data - not 100's of records - just enough in the form
    INSERT INTO Table1 VALUES(Field1, Field2.... FieldN);
    ..Please post EXPLAIN PLAN - again with tags.
    HTH,
    Paul...
    /best regards, Håkan

  • How to check small table scan full table scan if we  will use index  in where clause.

    How to check small table scan full table scan if i will use index column in where clause.
    Is there example link there i can  test small table scan full table  if index is used in where clause.

    Use explain plan on your statement or set autotrace traceonly in your SQL*Plus session followed by the SQL you are testing.
    For example
    SQL> set autotrace traceonly
    SQL> select *
      2  from XXX
      3  where id='fga';
    no rows selected
    Execution Plan
       0      SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=13 Card=1 Bytes=16
              5)
       1    0   PARTITION RANGE (ALL) (Cost=13 Card=1 Bytes=165)
       2    1     TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'XXX' (TABLE) (Cost=13 Card
              =1 Bytes=165)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
           1561  consistent gets
            540  physical reads
              0  redo size
           1864  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            333  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              1  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              0  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              0  rows processed

  • Simple Query in Oracle Linked Table in MS Access causes full table scan.

    I am running a very simple query in MS ACCESS to a linked Oracle table as follows:
    Select *
    From EXPRESS_SERVICE_EVENTS --(the linked table name refers to EXPRESS.SERVICE_EVENTS)
    Where performed > MyDate()
    or
    Select *
    From EXPRESS_SERVICE_EVENTS --(the linked table name refers to EXPRESS.SERVICE_EVENTS)
    Where performed > [Forms]![MyForm]![Date1]
    We have over 50 machines and this query runs fine on over half of these, using an Oracle Index on the "performed" field. Running exactly the same thing on the other machines causes a full table scan, therefore ignoring the Index (all machines access the same Access DB).
    Strangely, if we write the query as follows:
    Select *
    From EXPRESS_SERVICE_EVENTS
    Where performed > #09/04/2009 08:00#
    it works fast everywhere!
    Any help on this 'phenominon' would be appreciated.
    Things we've done:
    Checked regional settings, ODBC driver settings, MS Access settings (as in Tools->Options), we have the latest XP and Office service packs, and re-linked all Access Tables on both the slow and fast machines independantly).

    Primarily, thanks gdarling for your reply. This solved our problem.
    Just a small note to those who may be using this thread.
    Although this might not be the reason, my PC had Oracle 9iR2 installed with Administratiev Tools, where user machines had the same thing installed but using Runtime Installation. For some reason, my PC did not have 'bind date' etc. as an option in the workarounds, but user machines did have this workaround option. Strangely, although I did not have the option, my (ODBC) query was running as expected, but user queries were not.
    When we set the workaround checkbox accordingly, the queries then run as expected (fast).
    Once again,
    Thanks

  • FASTER THROUGH PUT ON FULL TABLE SCAN

    제품 : ORACLE SERVER
    작성날짜 : 1995-04-10
    Subject: Faster through put on Full table scans
    db_file_multiblock_read only affects the performance of full table scans.
    Oracle has a maximum I/O size of 64KBytes hence db_blocksize *
    db_file_multiblock_read must be less than or equal to 64KBytes.
    If your query is really doing an index range scan then the performance
    of full scans is irrelevant. In order to improve the performance of this
    type of query it is important to reduce the number of blocks that
    the 'interesting' part of the index is contained within.
    Obviously the db_blocksize has the most impact here.
    Historically Informix has not been able to modify their database block size,
    and has had a fixed 2KB block.
    On most Unix platforms Oracle can use up to 8KBytes.
    (Some eg: Sequent allow 16KB).
    This means that for the same size of B-Tree index Oracle with
    an 8KB blocksize can read it's contents in 1/4 of the time that
    Informix with a 2KB block could do.
    You should also consider whether the PCTFREE value used for your index is
    appropriate. If it is too large then you will be wasting space
    in each index block. (It's too large IF you are not going to get any
    entry size extension OR you are not going to get any new rows for existing
    index values. NB: this is usually only a real consideration for large indexes - 10,000 entries is small.)
    db_file_simultaneous_writes has no direct relevance to index re-balancing.
    (PS: In the U.K. we benchmarked against Informix, Sybase, Unify and
    HP/Allbase for the database server application that HP uses internally to
    monitor and control it's Tape drive manufacturing lines. They chose
    Oracle because: We outperformed Informix.
                             Sybase was too slow AND too
    unreliable.
                             Unify was short on functionality
    and SLOW.
                             HP/Allbase couldn't match the
    availability
                             requirements and wasn't as
    functional.
    Informix had problems demonstrating the ability to do hot backups without
    severely affecting the system throughput.
    HP benchmarked all DB vendors on both 9000/800 and 9000/700 machines with
    different disks (ie: HP-IB and SCSI). Oracle came out ahead in all
    configurations.
    NNB: It's always worth throwing in a simulated system failure whilst the
    benchmark is in progress. Informix has a history of not coping gracefully.
    That is they usually need some manual intervention to perform the database
    recovery.)
    I have a perspective client who is running a stripped down souped version of
    informix with no catalytic converter. One of their queries boils down to an
    Index Range Scan on 10000 records. How can I achieve better throughput
    on a single drive single CPU machine (HP/UX) without using raw devices.
    I had heard rebuilding the database with a block size factor greater than
    the OS block size would yield better performance. Also I tried changing
    the db_file_multiblock_read_count to 32 without much improvement.
    Adjusting the db_writers to two did not help either.     
    Also will the adjustment of the db_file_simultaneous_writes help on
    the maintenance of a index during rebalancing operations.

    2)if cbo, how are the stats collected?
    daily(less than millions rows of table) and weekly(all tables)There's no need to collect stats so frequently unless it's absolute necessary like you have massive update on tables daily or weekly.
    It will help if you can post your sample explain plan and query.

Maybe you are looking for

  • How to change target structure order

    Hi Guys, I am having the problem for changing the target structure order, I am dealing the fixed length files using the sender file adopter I am getting the order what ever I want. example below mention. created the data type message type and every t

  • IBooks Author: adding music?

    Hello, I am trying to find out if there is a way to insert music into an iBook created with iBooks Author?  I would like to have a name or word with something like a hyperlink that can be touched/clicked and a audio/music would play. Thanks,

  • Csv files open rather than download

    Hello, We've just set up a new Communigate Pro mail server. However, our Safari users are experiencing a bit of a quirk when it comes to accessing their attachments. When clicking on the download link for an attachment of content-type text/csv, the a

  • Configure new datasource,certain terms

    Hi all, while configuring a new data source, i am confused by certain terms, would appreciate if anyone can shed some light. Under the connection pool settings: Maximum Capacity: 20 According to BEA online help, its the "The maximum number of physica

  • "place" window is wonky.

    I recently started working in indesign cs6 on my mac.  I have been working in 5 for a long time so this was a well deserved upgrade for me. I am having an issue when I am placing an image or opening a file.  When I chose to place an image an the "pla