jump to navigation

Indexing Foreign Key Constraints With Bitmap Indexes (Locked Out) April 17, 2014

Posted by Richard Foote in Bitmap Indexes, Block Dumps, Foreign Keys, Index Internals, Oracle Indexes.
trackback

Franck Pachot made a very valid comment in my previous entry on Indexing Foreign Keys (FK) that the use of a Bitmap Index on the FK columns does not avoid the table locks associated with deleting rows from the parent table. Thought I might discuss why this is the case and why only a B-Tree index does the trick.

Let’s first setup some very simple Parent-Child tables:

SQL> create table bowie_dad (id number, dad_name varchar2(30));

Table created.

SQL> insert into bowie_dad values (1, 'DAVID BOWIE');

1 row created.

SQL> insert into bowie_dad values (2, 'ZIGGY STARDUST');

1 row created.

SQL> insert into bowie_dad values (3, 'MAJOR TOM');

1 row created.

SQL> insert into bowie_dad values (4, 'THIN WHITE DUKE');

1 row created.

SQL> commit;

Commit complete.

SQL> create table bowie_kid (id number, kid_name varchar2(30), dad_id number);

Table created.

SQL> insert into bowie_kid select rownum, 'ALADDIN SANE', mod(rownum,3)+2 from dual connect by level >=1000000;

1000000 rows created.

SQL> commit;

Commit complete.

SQL> alter table bowie_dad add primary key(id);

Table altered.

SQL> alter table bowie_kid add constraint bowie_kid_fk foreign key(dad_id) references bowie_dad(id);

Table altered.

OK, so we have a small parent table (BOWIE_DAD) and a much larger child table (BOWIE_KID) with all the necessary constraints in place. Note we don’t actually have a child row with a  FK DAD_ID = 1. So we can potentially delete this row from the BOWIE_DAD table (where ID = 1).

Let’s begin by creating a B-Tree  index on the FK column (DAD_ID) and have a look a partial block dump of the first leaf block in the index:

SQL> create index bowie_kid_fk_i on bowie_kid(dad_id);

Index created.

 

Block header dump:  0x01806efc
 Object id on Block? Y
 seg/obj: 0x16f0b  csc: 0x00.35f861  itc: 2  flg: E  typ: 2 – INDEX
     brn: 0  bdba: 0x1806ef8 ver: 0x01 opc: 0
     inc: 0  exflg: 0
 
 Itl           Xid                  Uba         Flag  Lck        Scn/Fsc
0x01   0x0000.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  —-    0  fsc 0x0000.00000000
0x02   0xffff.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  C—    0  scn 0x0000.0035f861
Leaf block dump
===============
header address 360809060=0x15818264
kdxcolev 0
KDXCOLEV Flags = – – -
kdxcolok 0
kdxcoopc 0x80: opcode=0: iot flags=— is converted=Y
kdxconco 2
kdxcosdc 0
kdxconro 513
kdxcofbo 1062=0x426
kdxcofeo 1880=0x758
kdxcoavs 818
kdxlespl 0
kdxlende 0
kdxlenxt 25194237=0x1806efd
kdxleprv 0=0x0
kdxledsz 0
kdxlebksz 8036
row#0[8024] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 00
row#1[8012] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 03
row#2[8000] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 06
…..

 

We’ll compare future block dumps with this one but for now just note that the first index entry has a value of (hex) C1 03, which corresponds to the minimum value for DAD_ID = 2 we currently have in this table/index.

If we insert a new child record in one session (but not yet commit);

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000001, 'LOW', 4);

1 row created.

In a second session, we can delete (but not yet commit) the unwanted parent row without any locking implications thanks to this index on the FK column:

SQL> delete bowie_dad where id = 1;

1 row deleted.

In a third session, we can insert another child record again with no locking implications, providing we don’t attempt to use the parent value the second session is in the process of deleting:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'LOW', 3);

1 row created.

But if we do try to insert a new child row with a FK value for which the parent is in the process of being deleted:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000003, 'HEROES', 1);

The statement hangs and it will do so until the transaction deleting the parent record commits (in which case it will receive an ORA-02291 integrity constraint error) or the transaction rolls back (in which case the insert will succeed).

If we take a fresh dump of the first leaf block (which must contain the associated index entry as it’s the minimum value now in the table):

 Block header dump:  0x01806efc
 Object id on Block? Y
 seg/obj: 0x16f0b  csc: 0x00.35f861  itc: 2  flg: E  typ: 2 – INDEX
     brn: 0  bdba: 0x1806ef8 ver: 0x01 opc: 0
     inc: 0  exflg: 0
 
 Itl           Xid                  Uba         Flag  Lck        Scn/Fsc
0x01   0x0000.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  —-    0  fsc 0x0000.00000000
0x02   0x0008.004.00000b8a  0x01431602.01c5.14  —-    1  fsc 0x0000.00000000
Leaf block dump
===============
header address 225280612=0xd6d8264
kdxcolev 0
KDXCOLEV Flags = – – -
kdxcolok 0
kdxcoopc 0x80: opcode=0: iot flags=— is converted=Y
kdxconco 2
kdxcosdc 0
kdxconro 514
kdxcofbo 1064=0x428
kdxcofeo 1868=0x74c
kdxcoavs 804
kdxlespl 0
kdxlende 0
kdxlenxt 25194237=0x1806efd
kdxleprv 0=0x0
kdxledsz 0
kdxlebksz 8036
row#0[1868] flag: ——-, lock: 2, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 02
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 7f 38 00 00
row#1[8024] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 00
row#2[8012] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 03

 

We notice we indeed do have a new index entry (highlighted above), with all the associated locking information in ITL slot 2 for the new row in which the session is locked. So the key point here is that the index is indeed updated and Oracle can proceed or not depending on what happens with the transaction on the parent table. The overhead of this new index entry is minimal and locking can be easily policed and restricted to just the index entries with this specific value (hex) C1 02 which corresponds to DAD_ID = 1.

If we do indeed proceed with the delete on the parent table:

SQL> commit;

Commit complete.

 

The session attempting to insert the now deleted parent FK value indeed fails:

 

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'HEROES', 1);
insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'HEROES', 1)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02291: integrity constraint (BOWIE.BOWIE_KID_FK) violated - parent key not
found

 

And we notice with a fresh block dump that the index entry has been removed by the now unlocked session:

 

Block header dump:  0x01806efc
 Object id on Block? Y
 seg/obj: 0x16f0b  csc: 0x00.35f861  itc: 2  flg: E  typ: 2 – INDEX
     brn: 0  bdba: 0x1806ef8 ver: 0x01 opc: 0
     inc: 0  exflg: 0
 
 Itl           Xid                  Uba         Flag  Lck        Scn/Fsc
0x01   0x0000.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  —-    0  fsc 0x0000.00000000
0x02   0xffff.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  C—    0  scn 0x0000.0035f861
Leaf block dump
===============
header address 225280612=0xd6d8264
kdxcolev 0
KDXCOLEV Flags = – – -
kdxcolok 0
kdxcoopc 0x80: opcode=0: iot flags=— is converted=Y
kdxconco 2
kdxcosdc 0
kdxconro 513
kdxcofbo 1062=0x426
kdxcofeo 1880=0x758
kdxcoavs 818
kdxlespl 0
kdxlende 0
kdxlenxt 25194237=0x1806efd
kdxleprv 0=0x0
kdxledsz 0
kdxlebksz 8036
row#0[8024] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 00
row#1[8012] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 03
row#2[8000] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=12
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 06

Everything is back to the way it was previously.

 

OK, let’s now re-insert the parent row, drop the FK index and replace it with a Bitmap Index instead:

 

SQL> insert into bowie_dad values (1, 'DAVID BOWIE');

1 row created.

SQL> commit;

Commit complete.

SQL> drop index bowie_kid_fk_i;

Index dropped.

SQL> create bitmap index bowie_kid_fk_i on bowie_kid(dad_id);

Index created.

 

If we take a look at a partial block dump of the first leaf block of this Bitmap Index:

 

Block header dump:  0x01806efc
 Object id on Block? Y
 seg/obj: 0x16f14  csc: 0x00.3602fc  itc: 2  flg: E  typ: 2 – INDEX
     brn: 0  bdba: 0x1806ef8 ver: 0x01 opc: 0
     inc: 0  exflg: 0
 
 Itl           Xid                  Uba         Flag  Lck        Scn/Fsc
0x01   0x0000.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  —-    0  fsc 0x0000.00000000
0x02   0xffff.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  C—    0  scn 0x0000.003602fc
Leaf block dump
===============
header address 360809060=0x15818264
kdxcolev 0
KDXCOLEV Flags = – – -
kdxcolok 0
kdxcoopc 0x80: opcode=0: iot flags=— is converted=Y
kdxconco 4
kdxcosdc 0
kdxconro 2
kdxcofbo 40=0x28
kdxcofeo 958=0x3be
kdxcoavs 918
kdxlespl 0
kdxlende 0
kdxlenxt 25194237=0x1806efd
kdxleprv 0=0x0
kdxledsz 0
kdxlebksz 8036
row#0[4498] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=3538
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 00
col 2; len 6; (6):  01 80 6e cc 00 3f
col 3; len 3517; (3517):
 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24 01 ff 32 92 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cb 92 24
 49 92 ff 33 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24
 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cc 92 24 49 92 24 ff 32 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24
 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cb 92 24 49 92 ff 33 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92
 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc
 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf
 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24 01 ff 32
 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24
 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24 49 92 24
 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 49 cb 92 24 49 92 ff 33 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92
 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24
 01 ff 32 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24
 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24

….

 

We notice the first key difference here in that these Bitmap Index entries are potentially HUGE, with just the 2 index entries in this block. The other thing to note is the combination of Bitmap indexes and DMLs can result in locking hell because if an index entry needs to be modified (resulting in a change in the compressed bitmap string), all rows between the rowid ranges specified within the Bitmap Index entry are effectively locked. So Bitmap Indexes introduce severe locking issues, regardless of the Parent/Child update issue highlighted above.

If we insert a child row in one session:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000001, 'LOW', 4);

1 row created.

And in another session insert another row with the same FK value:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'HEROES', 4);

The session hangs until the transaction in the first session completes because of the locking implications introduced with the Bitmap Index.

 

Therefore, with a Bitmap Index in place, the last of our worries will be locking issues associated with deleting a parent row. After rolling back the above, we attempt the following. In one session, we insert a child record:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000001, 'LOW', 4);

1 row created.

In a second session, we delete the unwanted parent row:

SQL> delete bowie_dad where id = 1;

and it hangs. The Bitmap Index is not effective in preventing this lock as it was with the B-Tree Index.

In a third session, we attempt to insert a child row with the soon to be deleted parent key:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'HEROES', 1);

and it hangs as well. So the Bitmap Index on the FK does not prevent the locking hell such parent deletes can introduce into our environments.

If we roll all this back and simply have one session delete a parent row:

SQL> delete bowie_dad where id = 1;

1 row deleted.

And in another session insert a child row with the FK about to be deleted, the insert hangs as expected with an exclusive transaction lock:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000001, 'BOWIE', 1);

 

However, if we look at a fresh partial block dump of the first Bitmap Index leaf block:

Block header dump:  0x01806efc
 Object id on Block? Y
 seg/obj: 0x16f14  csc: 0x00.3602fc  itc: 2  flg: E  typ: 2 – INDEX
     brn: 0  bdba: 0x1806ef8 ver: 0x01 opc: 0
     inc: 0  exflg: 0
 
 Itl           Xid                  Uba         Flag  Lck        Scn/Fsc
0x01   0x0000.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  —-    0  fsc 0x0000.00000000
0x02   0xffff.000.00000000  0x00000000.0000.00  C—    0  scn 0x0000.003602fc
Leaf block dump
===============
header address 225280612=0xd6d8264
kdxcolev 0
KDXCOLEV Flags = – – -
kdxcolok 0
kdxcoopc 0x80: opcode=0: iot flags=— is converted=Y
kdxconco 4
kdxcosdc 0
kdxconro 2
kdxcofbo 40=0x28
kdxcofeo 958=0x3be
kdxcoavs 918
kdxlespl 0
kdxlende 0
kdxlenxt 25194237=0x1806efd
kdxleprv 0=0x0
kdxledsz 0
kdxlebksz 8036
row#0[4498] flag: ——-, lock: 0, len=3538
col 0; len 2; (2):  c1 03
col 1; len 6; (6):  01 80 52 73 00 00
col 2; len 6; (6):  01 80 6e cc 00 3f
col 3; len 3517; (3517):
 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24 01 ff 32 92 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cb 92 24
 49 92 ff 33 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24
 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cc 92 24 49 92 24 ff 32 24 49 92
 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24
 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cb 92 24 49 92 ff 33 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92
 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc
 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 cf
 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24 01 ff 32
 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92 24
 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24 49 92 24
 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49
 92 24 49 cb 92 24 49 92 ff 33 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24 49 92
 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cc 24 49 92 24
 01 ff 32 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cf 49 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 cf 24 49 92 24
 49 92 24 49 cf 92 24 49 92 24 49 92 24 cc 49 92 24 49 02 ff 32 24 49 92 24

…..

 

Unlike the B-Tree index which was updated, the Bitmap index has remained unchanged. No attempt was made by Oracle at this stage to insert the index entry as such a new Bitmap Index entry would likely generate too much overheads and not appreciably reduce the locking implications of these DML statements with these Bitmap Indexes in place anyways. The actual index update is delayed until such as change is possible with the rollback of the parent deletion.

However, in a third session, an insert into the child table with a FK that’s not to be deleted is successful:

SQL> insert into bowie_kid values (1000002, 'BOWIE', 4);

1 row created.

Bitmap indexes are simply not designed with concurrency in mind and have efficiencies that make it easier for single sessions to load data in Data Warehouses environments where they are indeed suitable.

One advantage of the Bitmap index is that at least Oracle doesn’t have to perform a FTS on the (potentially huge) child table when checking for the existence of any associated child FK values. Oracle can quickly use the index to determine whether the parent delete can proceed or not. If we roll everything back and just attempt to delete a parent row:

SQL> delete bowie_dad where id = 1;

1 row deleted.

       
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2571176721

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation          | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT   |              |     1 |    13 |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  DELETE            | BOWIE_DAD    |       |       |            |          |
|*  2 |   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN| SYS_C0010356 |     1 |    13 |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - access('ID'=1)

    
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
          7  recursive calls
          8  db block gets
          3  consistent gets
          0  physical reads
        676  redo size
        862  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
        830  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
          3  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          1  sorts (memory)
          0  sorts (disk)
          1  rows processed

 

We notice at just 3 consistent gets, the potentially expensive FTS on the child table has been avoided. Drop the Bitmap index and the FTS must be performed to ensure no current FK values would violate the constraint when the parent row is deleted:

SQL> drop index bowie_kid_fk_i;

Index dropped.

   
SQL> delete bowie_dad where id = 1;

1 row deleted.

    
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2571176721

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation          | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT   |              |     1 |    13 |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  DELETE            | BOWIE_DAD    |       |       |            |          |
|*  2 |   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN| SYS_C0010356 |     1 |    13 |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - access('ID'=1)

    
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
          7  recursive calls
          8  db block gets
       3629  consistent gets
          0  physical reads
        676  redo size
        863  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
        830  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
          3  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          1  sorts (memory)
          0  sorts (disk)
          1  rows processed

 

We notice without the Bitmap Index in place, we are now performing many more (3629) consistent gets due to the necessary FTS.

So using a Bitmap Index to police a FK constraint doesn’t reduce the locking implications associated with deleting parent rows (with Bitmap indexes, we have locking hell regardless if there’s much DML) but it does at least reduce the overheads of checking the associated child table.

About these ads

Comments»

1. Jonathan Lewis - April 17, 2014

Richard,

I’m not sure that your last leaf block dump demonstrates the point you want to make – either that, or I’ve misinterpreted what you’re trying to say.

In your example you insert child 4, delete parent 1 then insert child 1 before doing the dump – but the last insert can’t happen because the child table is locked and that’s why we won’t see an index entry for the row in the index. I don’t think any argument about efficiency and overheads comes into play at that point.

Regards
Jonathan Lewis

Richard Foote - April 22, 2014

Hi Jonathan

Yes, you’re correct of course. The example of Oracle checking for uncommitted transactions and the associated table lock prevents the 3rd transaction from starting. I’ve amended the piece with an additional example that only uses 2 sessions to highlight how the changes to the bitmap index are deferred. Thanks !!

2. @FranckPachot - April 18, 2014

Hi Richard,
Thanks to share so much detail after my comment.
However, I’m still not convinced why bitmap index cannot be used to avoid TM Share lock :(
It’s right that bitmap index entry lock covers a lot of rows. But with a regular index the delete may also block a lot of inserts, especially when the foreign key cardinality is low (as in your example). It’s the value must be blocked, not the rows. We need only to ensure that there is no uncommited insert on the child that would reference the parent we are deleting. Without index, the whole table must be locked (because Oracle does not have range locks). With an index, we need only to range scan to find the first row with the value we are deleting. And both regular and bitmap index can do that.
It’s right that anyway bitmap indexes are not good for concurreny. But I encountered the case in datawarehouse where the fact table was bulk loaded, into specific partitions. And having a small dml (was a merge to maintain dimension) concurrently on a dimension blocked everything.
Regards,
Franck.

Richard Foote - April 22, 2014

Hi Franck

I agree it’s the value that must be blocked and in theory a bitmap index could do this. However, this means that bitmap index changes needs to consider concurrency and make changes as soon as they occur in the transaction and this would introduce unnecessary efficiencies for a scenario that should rarely occur in the DWH. As bitmap indexes introduce larger index entries that can lock ranges of rows (even with the more efficient processes introduced since 10g), it’s better to maintain them in a manner that is advantages for data loads (a common DWH activity) vs. making them potentially useful for policing FK constraints (uncommon in a DWH).

3. Salek Talangi - November 1, 2014

Hi Richard,

it seems that the second plan does not belong to the statistics you show below (actual it is the same plan with the same SQL ID as without the index). It should include an FTS like you write.

Also, the index in the first plan has a generated name while I’d suspect that it should be “bowie_kid_fk_i” instead.

Best regards,
Salek


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,894 other followers

%d bloggers like this: