jump to navigation

NOVALIDATE Constraints – No really … July 28, 2008

Posted by Richard Foote in Constraints, Indexing Tricks, Novalidate Constraints, Oracle Indexes, Primary Key, Unique Indexes.
20 comments

There have been a number of posts recently on the OTN database forum regarding the whole topic of NOVALIDATE of constraints and the associated indexes so I thought it might be worth going over a couple of interesting little quirks with all this.

A NOVALIDATE constraint is basically a constraint which can be enabled but for which Oracle will not check the existing data to determine whether there might be data that currently violates the constraint.

This is useful if we know there’s data that violates the constraint but we want to quickly put on a constraint to prevent further violations, with the intention to clean up any possible violations at some future point in time.

It’s also potentially useful if we know the data is clean and so want to prevent the potentially significant overheads of Oracle having to check all the data to ensure there are indeed no violations.

I previously discussed the use of Non-Unique Indexes for manageing Primary and Unique Key Constraints but there are a few little traps one can easily fall into if one doesn’t understand these two very important fundamentals:

  1. By default, Oracle will attempt to create a Unique Index to police a PK or UK constraint
  2. A NOVALIDATE constraint requires a Non-Unique Index for the constraint to really be “Novalidated”

Get these two concepts confused and things can easily get a little difficult to follow …

Here’s a little example of how things can start to get confusing. First, let’s create a simple little table and populate it with a few rows.

SQL> CREATE TABLE ZIGGY (id NUMBER, text VARCHAR2(20));

Table created.

SQL> INSERT INTO ziggy SELECT rownum , ‘Ziggy’ FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 10000;

10000 rows created.

Note that the ID column is populated with unique values. However, let’s now introduce a duplicate value, 42:

SQL> INSERT INTO ziggy VALUES (42, ‘DUPLICATE’);

1 row created.

SQL> COMMIT;

Commit complete.

OK, we now want to add a Primary Key to this table but because we suspect there might be some duplicate values which we intend to clean up at some future point in time, we want to create the constraint with NOVALIDATE:

SQL> ALTER TABLE ziggy ADD CONSTRAINT ziggy_pk PRIMARY KEY(id) ENABLE NOVALIDATE;
ALTER TABLE ziggy ADD CONSTRAINT ziggy_pk PRIMARY KEY(id) ENABLE NOVALIDATE
                                 *
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02437: cannot validate (BOWIE.ZIGGY_PK) – primary key violated

Now what the hell is going on here ?

We clearly stated we want to create a NOVALIDATE constraint but Oracle appears to be ignoring this and is validating the constraint regardless and so generating an error because of the duplicate entry.

Why ?

Because by default Oracle will attempt to create a Unique index when creating a PK constraint. A Unique index MUST always contain unique values and so complains when it stumbles across our duplicate 42 ID value. The constraint is being effectively validated because the unique index will only be created providing there are indeed no duplicate values.

Not how I would have designed things but there you go …

However, if we either have an existing Non-Unique index which Oracle can use or we explicitly create a Non-Unique index, then we can proceed with creating the NOVALIDATE constraint as required:

SQL> ALTER TABLE ziggy ADD CONSTRAINT ziggy_pk PRIMARY KEY(id)
USING INDEX(CREATE INDEX ziggy_pk ON ziggy(id)) ENABLE NOVALIDATE;

Table altered.

If we look at the status of the constraint and the type of index used to police the constraint, we notice that the index is indeed a Non-Unique index and the constraint has not been validated:

SQL> SELECT constraint_name, validated, uniqueness
FROM user_constraints c, user_indexes i
WHERE c.constraint_name = i.index_name AND c.table_name= ‘ZIGGY';

CONSTRAINT_NAME VALIDATED     UNIQUENES
--------------- ------------- ---------
ZIGGY_PK        NOT VALIDATED NONUNIQUE

We have a PK constraint even though there are currently duplicate values of the PK column in the data.

OK, let’s now drop and the constraint, the Unique Index and delete the duplicate row:

SQL> ALTER TABLE ziggy DROP PRIMARY KEY;

Table altered.

SQL> DROP INDEX ZIGGY_PK;

Index dropped.

SQL> DELETE ziggy WHERE id = 42 and rownum <= 1;

1 row deleted.

SQL> COMMIT;

Commit complete.

The data is now clean and we have no existing constraint or index on the ID column:

SQL> SELECT constraint_name, validated FROM user_constraints WHERE table_name= ‘ZIGGY';

no rows selected

Let’s now do something that based on our understanding might appear to be a little odd, let’s try and recreate the constraint in a NOVALIDATE state but with a Unique index. This of course should now work as there are indeed no duplicates within the data:

SQL> ALTER TABLE ziggy ADD CONSTRAINT ziggy_pk PRIMARY KEY(id) ENABLE NOVALIDATE;

Table altered.

Success !! Let’s now look at the state of the constraint and the type of index created:

SQL> SELECT constraint_name, validated, uniqueness
FROM user_constraints c, user_indexes i
WHERE c.constraint_name = i.index_name AND c.table_name= ‘ZIGGY';

CONSTRAINT_NAME VALIDATED     UNIQUENES
--------------- ------------- ---------
ZIGGY_PK        NOT VALIDATED UNIQUE 

As expected, we have a constraint that’s policed by a Unique index that has not been validated.

This might appear be a little odd, because the question you might well now ask is why bother no validating a constraint that has effectively been validated anyways as the use of the Unique index has guaranteed there can not possibly be any duplicate values else the creation of the Unique index would have failed ?

We effectively have a validated constraint which Oracle is still classifying as being not validated :)

Then again, maybe not …

More later.

Index Only Values Of Interest: (Little Wonder) January 28, 2008

Posted by Richard Foote in Function Based Indexes, Indexing Tricks, Oracle General, Oracle Indexes.
19 comments

Thought I might expand a little on the discussion and comments on how NULLs can be indexed and address point #6 on my list of those things you may not have known about indexes

“It’s possible and potentially very useful to just index some column values and not all column values within a table”.

as well as touching on point #4 that “B-Tree Indexes can be extremely useful and beneficial even if the column contains very few distinct values (as low as 1)”.

As previously discussed, index entries which are fully NULL are not indexed by Oracle. We can however use this fact to our advantage.

There are many scenarios whereby we may only search for a rowset based on a subset of the possible values in a column or group of columns. The classic scenario is where we may have a flag or status field denoting “current”, “live”, “not yet processed”, etc. rows and our main transactional queries are only interested in these relatively few rows.

Most rows are “historical”, “processed”, etc. rows and are not generally of interest and when they are of interest represent such a large proportion of the overall table that an index would be inappropriate for these batch jobs or long running reports to access them anyways. Often, (but not always) we might need a histogram to let the CBO know that those column values of interest actually represents a small, non-uniform proportion of the overall rowset.

Because we need to efficiently access those few rows of interest, we generally index the column but in the process also index all the other column values that aren’t of interest as well. It’s all or nothing, right ?

Not necessarily. A possible solution is to use an appropriate function-based index in combination with our understanding that fully null index entries are not actually indexed. For example, let assume we have a very large table that has a STATUS code column. The only column value of interest are those with a status value of ‘BOWIE’, all other values are simply not of direct interest with our OLTP queries. By creating an index such as:

CREATE INDEX index_some_stuff_i ON
index_some_stuff(DECODE(status, ‘BOWIE’, ‘BOWIE’, NULL)) COMPUTE STATISTICS;

the decode function only returns a non-null value for the specific status of “BOWIE”. All other values are converted to nulls and so are not indexed.

We now have an index that consists of nothing but “BOWIE” values. As a result, the index is tiny because the vast majority of column values are simply not indexed. But because the percentage of rows that actually have a status of “BOWIE” is very small, the CBO looks at this index very favourably. By now writing our queries in a manner such as this:

SELECT * FROM index_some_stuff
WHERE(DECODE(status, ‘BOWIE’, ‘BOWIE’, null)) = ‘BOWIE';

It will hopefully use our nice, small, efficient function-based index.

Not only will this index save us potentially large storage overheads, but if it may be small enough to reduce the height of the index on a permanent basis, thus making the index access more efficient.

See this demo for an example of how we reduced an index with 2924 leaf blocks and a height of 3 down to a height of 1 and just the 1 leaf block.

Indexing NULLs: (Empty Spaces) January 23, 2008

Posted by Richard Foote in Indexing NULLs, Indexing Tricks, Oracle General, Oracle Indexes, Performance Tuning.
44 comments

There have always been issues with NULLs and indexes. The main issue being of course if the indexed columns are all null then the associated row is not indexed.

Generally, this is a good thing. If we have a table with lots of null values for indexed columns, then the associated rows are not indexed resulting in a smaller index structure. Also, very often we’re simply not interested in result sets where the indexed values are null so it’s generally not an issue.

However, what if the number of rows where the values are null are relatively small and what if we want to find all rows where the index column or columns are indeed null. If the column or columns don’t have nulls indexed then a potentially expensive Full Table Scan (FTS) is the CBO’s only option.

The first thing to point out is that nulls are actually indexed, if other columns in the index have a not null value. For example, if we have a concatenated index on columns (A,B), so long as A has a not null value then column B can have an indexed null value and if column B has a not null value then column A can have an indexed null value. Only if both columns A and B contain nulls, will the associated row not be indexed.

If column B has a NOT NULL constraint, then Oracle knows that B can not contain any null values. Therefore, if column A can contain null values, Oracle also knows that each and every null value of A must also be indexed as it’s not possible to have an entirely null indexed entry. Therefore, with an index on (A,B), we can use the index to return every null value for A, providing of course the CBO considers the costs of doing so to be cheaper than a FTS. We can also always of course use the index to return all null values of A for any corresponding not null value of B.

So with concatenated indexes and with at least one not null column, Oracle can guarantee that every null for all the other columns are contained within the index and so could potentially use the index for corresponding IS NULL predicates.

But what if the index has a single column or what if none of the indexes have a NOT NULL constraint, we’re done for, the CBO won’t be able to use the associated index to just retrieve nulls, right ?

Well not quite.

Let’s assume we have an index that consists just of column A and it’s a null column. Let’s also assume there are not too many rows that have a null for A and we have an important query that would dearly love to use an index to retrieve rows based on these null values for column A.

Well one alternative of course as I’ve seen a number of times is to just include a NOT NULL column in the  index as well, say (A,B). Yes, we don’t particularly want to include column B in the index but at least by doing so, we ensure all null values for column A are indexed, making A IS NULL predicates viable through an index.

However a somewhat cheaper and less expensive alternative is to just simply append a single character to the index, for example a space (A, ‘ ‘). The space character takes up one byte, the column length in the index takes up an additional byte for a total of 2 bytes overhead per index entry. Yes this will reduce the capacity of a leaf block to contain as many index entries and so potentially increase somewhat the overall size of the index. However, this will also guarantee that the index can not contain all null entries thereby ensuring all other columns have all their null values indexed.

 See this demo on Indexing Null Values for examples on how this all works.

Introduction To Linguistic Indexes – Part II January 9, 2008

Posted by Richard Foote in Indexing Tricks, Linguistic Indexes, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle Indexes, Performance Tuning.
6 comments

As previously discussed, Linguistic Indexes can potentially be useful with case-insensitive searches and sorts.

However, they have a number of issues and disadvantages.

The first issue is that once the NLS_COMP parameter is set to ‘LINGUISTIC’ and the NLS_SORT parameter is set to something other than ‘BINARY’, standard binary indexes can no longer be used and are ignored by the CBO. This means one needs to have a very careful and consistent indexing strategy to ensure no SQL statements are compromised while Linguistic related NLS parameters are set. Simple demo highlighting issues with mixing Linguistic and Binary Indexes here.  Note these demos follow those in Introduction To Linguistic Indexes Part I.

The next issue is that Linguistic Indexes are ignored for some types of predicate conditions. MIN, MAX and LIKE can not be used with Linguistic Indexes (although LIKE can now be used with 11g). Simple demo highlighting problems with these predicate conditions here.

Finally, Linguistic Indexes typically use more storage than Binary indexes and so have more associated overheads and costs. The differences in storage is dependent on the charactersets associated with the various indexes. Some examples of differences shown here. Warning: This demo has lots of block dumps !!

Linguistic Indexes are worthy of consideration, but so are the associated costs and disadvantages.

Introduction To Linguistic Indexes – Part I January 3, 2008

Posted by Richard Foote in Index Access Path, Indexing Tricks, Linguistic Indexes, Oracle Indexes.
9 comments

Characters are sorted by default based on numeric values defined by the default character encoding scheme (known as Binary Sorting). For us Australians, this is fine as we (generally) speak English and the English alphabet is nicely sorted in ascending order by ASCII and EBCDIC standards. However, many other languages are not so fortunate as the binary sort does not sort the data in many language’s alphabetic sort order.  Oracle has many Globalization Support features to help users in other languages get over these issues (all very interesting and topics for many a Blog entry in the future).

However, even us Australians have issues when it comes to “case-insensitive” searches, where data may be stored in many different cases (eg. Ziggy, ZIGGY, ZiGgY, etc.) and we want to return all data that matches a character value, regardless of its case.

The issue of course is that by default, all text searches are case-sensitive. For example a search WHERE name=’ZIGGY’ will only return ‘ZIGGY’ but not ‘Ziggy’ or ‘ZiGgY’ etc.

The standard fix is for the application to convert the data to a consistent case when performing the search. For example a search WHERE UPPER(Name) = ‘ZIGGY’ will return all values of “ZIGGY” regardless of their case but this will negate the use of any standard index on the Name column.

Therefore, a Function-Based index is required, say based on UPPER(Name), to ensure an efficient index access is possible for case insensitive searches.

However, this often requires an additional index to be created and for the application to be explicitly written to make use of the function-based index defined function.

Now the best cure for this problem is simply to ensure all data is stored in a consistent case (ZIGGY, ZIGGY, ZIGGY) but this may not always be practical or even desirable in some cases.

Another possible solution is the use of a Linguistic Index. This is an index that is created based on a specific case insensitive linguistic language or multilingual option that ensures the index entries are sorted in the linguistic language order, not on the default binary order of the database encoding scheme.

Basic steps are:

1) Create a Linguistic Index, eg.

CREATE INDEX case_search_ling_name_i ON case_search(NLSSORT(name,’NLS_SORT=GENERIC_M_CI’));

2) Set NLS_SORT in the session (or set parameter) to use the required Linguistic sort option , eg.

ALTER SESSION SET NLS_SORT=’GENERIC_M_CI';   

Simply append _CI in the Linguistic sort option to make it Case-Insensitive or _AI to make it Accent-Insensitive.

(Note: if binary ordering is generally adequate, NLS_SORT can simply be set to ‘BINARY_CI’ for Binary Case-Insensitive searches)

3) Set NLS_COMP in the session (or set parameter) to use Linguistic Sorts/Case Insensitive Searches, eg.

ALTER SESSION SET NLS_COMP=’LINGUISTIC';

A search now based on WHERE name=’ZIGGY’ will automatically perform a case-insensitive search without the need to modify the application to use specific functions.

For a full demo, see Use Linguistic Indexes Demo.

However, before you rush out and start using Linguistic Indexes to possibly simplify the use of case insensitive searches, note there are various disadvantages to Linguistic Indexes, which can somewhat dampen their appeal. These will be covered in Part II of this series.

Differences between Unique and Non-Unique Indexes (Part II) December 21, 2007

Posted by Richard Foote in Index Access Path, Index Internals, Indexing Tricks, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle Indexes, Primary Key, Unique Indexes.
22 comments

The most significant difference between a Unique and a Non-Unique index is of course the simple fact that in one index, all index entries MUST be unique and in the other index there can be duplicates of an index entry.

Although an obvious distinction between the two, it’s also a crucial difference as well.

When Oracle uses a Unique Index to scan for a specific value (via an equality predicate on all indexed columns or when policing a constraint ), there can only be one of two possible results. The value can exist returning at the very most one value or the value doesn’t exist returning 0 values. That’s it, 1 row or none. The value either exists or it doesn’t.

This fact means Oracle doesn’t have to worry about a whole bunch of things when dealing with Unique indexes during equality or unique checking processes. It doesn’t have to check the next index entry just in case there’s a second or more entries with the same value. It doesn’t have to worry about the potential of having to skip across to the next leaf page if the specific value it reads happens to be the maximum value in the current leaf page. It doesn’t have to worry about pointers to these “adjacent” leaf blocks changing on it due to block splits. It doesn’t have to concern itself with potentially visiting more than the one table data block during the index access operation.

Life is simple, it’s either 1 row or none.

Not so for Non-Unique indexes. With a Non-Unique index, there are no such guarantees. With a Non-Unique index, there are 3 categories of possibilities. An index scan could return 0 rows, it could return 1 row or it could return more than one row. It could potentially need to go and visit more than the current leaf block to return all the matching rows. It could potentially need to go and visit more than one table block.

Life’s not quite so “simple” for a Non-Unique index.

Note also and most importantly that life gets no easier for a Non-Unique index that polices a PK or Unique key constraint.

Even though there’s a PK or Unique constraint on a column, to Oracle, it’s just another Non-Unique index with the same “vague” possibilities. Remember that PK and Unique constraints can be enabled with NOVALIDATE meaning that even with a PK or Unique constraint, there’s still the possibility of duplicate index entries in the Non-Unique index. Remember constraints can be DEFERRABLE, meaning that even with a PK or Unique constraint, there’s still the possibility of duplicate index entries in the Non-Unique index.

This means that Oracle has to concern itself with a number of additional overheads, including having to “check” the next index entry, “just in case” it matches the required index value. It has to concern itself even with the possibility of having to visit the next index leaf block, “just in case”.

You will note when Oracle performs an equality search using a Unique Index, Oracle will perform an “INDEX UNIQUE SCAN” because the index entries MUST be unique.

You will note however when Oracle performs an equality search using a Non-Unique index, even if there’s a PK or Unique constraint of the column(s), Oracle will perform an INDEX RANGE SCAN, because it needs to scan multiple index entries “just in case”.

So are there any actual implications as a result of any of this ?

Yes.

When Oracle actually reads an index and processes the associated blocks in the buffer cache(s), Oracle uses a number of latches. These latches are used primarily to “protect” memory structures from concurrent activity. Very simplistically, by grabbing a latch, Oracle effectively performs a “lock” on the associated memory structure, perform whatever activity needs to be performed and releases the latch. These latches get grabbed and released (hopefully) extremely quickly (order of 1/10s of ms), but it’s a non zero value.

The issue with latches is that they’re a point of serialisation. If two (or more) processes want a specific latch, one (or more) has to wait. Latches also burn CPU. Only a teensy weeny bit at a time but some CPU nonetheless. They burn CPU while acquiring the latch and if fail due to latch contention, while attempting again and again to acquire the latch. They also burn CPU while performing the specific operation necessary of the latch.

Basically, the more latches, the greater the potential for contention, the greater the potential for latch related wait activity and perhaps most important of all, more CPU is required. In busy systems, there can be massive numbers of latch events and the best way to tune these events is to reduce where possible the number of latches required by the database environment. It’s one of the key reasons we try and reduce LIOs in a database as much as possible, to reduce the latch and CPU load on the system.

Because of the differences highlighted between Unique and Non-Unique indexes, the number and manner of latches required between the two indexes differs. And it differs significantly …

In this little demo, Latch Differences Between Unique and Non-Unique Indexes Demo, we compare the latches required to read an identical table, using a 2 level index. The  differences between the latch overheads of a Unique and a Non-Unique index are most interesting.

When using a Unique Index, Oracle required 3 consistent gets (one for the index root block, one for the leaf block and one for the table block). BUT, each consistent get was a consistent gets – examination, a special type of consistent get which only requires 1 latch (rather than the standard 2 latches).

So that’s a sum of 3 latches.

However, when using a Non-Unique index, Oracle required 4 consistent gets (one for the index root block, one for the leaf block, one for the table block and an additional one to recheck the leaf block for any duplicate index entries). BUT, only the 1 consistent read (for the index root block) was actually the “cheaper” consistent gets – examination, the other 3 were the more costly 2 latch variety.

So that’s a sum of 7 latches.

3 latches for the Unique index and 7 latches for the Non-Unique index.

That’s an increase of 133.3% in latches between the two types of indexes.

Now, the height of the index will change the ratio of latch difference between the two indexes. Also, in a busy system, there could potentially be differences in the types of latches used due to the current state or additional activity in a block.

However, the potential difference in latch requirements between a Unique or Non-Unique index can be very significant. But does a few additional latches here and there really make much of a difference ?

Well, of course it depends. On small scale systems with smaller loads, fewer indexes, fewer users and excess resources, the noticeable differences may be negligible.

However, in larger scale (especially OLTP) environments, a particular index may be accessed 100s or maybe 1000s of times a second. There may be 1000s of tables with 1000s of corresponding PK and Unique constraints policed by 1000s of Unique (or Non-Unique) indexes. It’s therefore not really of question of a few latches here or there. It’s a question of potentially a very significant proportion of overall latch related overheads.

Potentially when accessed, Non-Unique indexes could be generating double the latch related overheads for equality unique scan or unique checking index activity. Remember, the best way to tune latches and reduce latch contention is to simply reduce the requirement and load for latches.

The overall reduction in CPU and latch related wait activity could be significant between Unique and Non-Unique indexes because by using Non-Unique indexes you in the order of double the latches required for such activities.

Note also this doesn’t require any special parameters to be set or special tuning or monitoring by the DBA. It simply requires using Unique indexes to police PK or Unique constraints when there are no requirements of Non-Unique indexes. You then potentially gain a benefit each and every time the index is used for unique scan accesses.

Guess what type of access is extremely common in large scale OLTP environments …

The next time you complain about high CPU consumption or high latch contention and you’re tuned the application to death, just ask yourself how many Non-unique indexes are policing your PK or Unique Key constraints …

Differences between Unique and Non-Unique Indexes (Part I) December 18, 2007

Posted by Richard Foote in Constraints, Deferrable Constraints, Index Internals, Indexing Tricks, Novalidate Constraints, Oracle Indexes, Primary Key, Unique Indexes.
30 comments

I’ve had a number of comments regarding my earlier blog entry where I recommended avoiding Deferrable and Novalidate constraints unless you need them and consider using Unique Indexes rather than Non-Unique Indexes where possible.

Why such a recommendation, aren’t Unique and Non-Unique indexes practically the same thing when it comes to policing constraints ?

Sure one index explicitly prevents the insertion of duplicates while the other doesn’t. Yes, dropping/disabling  a constraint policed by an automatically created Unique index causes the index to be dropped if you forget the KEEP INDEX clause.

But that’s about it, right ?

Well, if you need a constraint to be deferrable, then you must create (either implicitly or explicitly) a Non-Unique index. If you want to enable a constraint with novalidate, then again you can only do so with a Non-Unique index in place policing the constraint.

It does all rather sound like Non-Unique indexes have all the advantages and allows for all the flexibility one could want. Non-Unique indexes allows for both deferrable and novalidate constraints, they don’t get dropped when the associated constraint is dropped / disabled and they can actually police both PK and Unique constraints.

What possible benefits are there in Unique Indexes ?

Well, providing you don’t need your constraints to be deferrable, you validate your constraints when they get created/enabled and you don’t go around dropping PK and/or Unique constraints on too regular a basis (or remember the KEEP INDEX clause if you don’t want your index dropped when you do), then there are a number of reasons why you may just want to consider using Unique indexes over Non-Unique indexes.

There are actually a number of key differences between Unique and Non-Unique indexes, both in the manner in which they’re stored by Oracle and in the manner in which they get processed.

In Part I, I’m just going to focus on the differences in how Oracle physically stores index entries.

In actual fact, there’s really no such thing as a Non-Unique index in Oracle. In order for Oracle to be able to determine the location of any specific index row entry and for Oracle to be able to determine an appropriate “order” for each index row entry, internally, Oracle coverts all Non-Unique indexes into a Unique index. It does this by using the associated ROWID of the index row entry as an additional “column”. As each ROWID is unique, this effectively makes all index entries in a Non-Unique index unique as well. Oracle uses the unique combination of the Non-Unique index value and the associated ROWID to then determine the appropriate order and hence appropriate location within the index structure in which to store the index row entry.

By Oracle making the ROWID an additional column, it also has to allocate an additional byte per index row entry in order to store the length of this column. That’s one teeny weeny little byte extra for each and every index row entry.

So what ?

Well, for indexes that don’t have a particularly large index key length, that one byte can be a significant proportion of the overall key length. Now Oracle needs to allocate 2 byes per row entry for various flags and locking information, it requires 6 bytes for the rowid and 1 byte for each column entry. That’s 9 bytes minimum plus the length of the indexed value itself.

Well how large is a typical unique index entry? Well that of course all depends and some PK  / (and especially) Unique values can be quite large. But many many PK values are simply sequenced based numerical values, created nice and small so as to reduce overheads when stored in dependent child tables.

But can it really make any noticeable difference ?

Well, this little demo shows two tables with 1 million numeric PK values: Compare internal index storage between Unique and Non-Unique Indexes

Table test1 is created with a Non-Unique Index, table test2 is created with a Unique Index. The demo shows a partial block dump of a leaf block from each index, highlighting how the Non-Unique index requires an additional byte per index row entry.

The Unique index manages to hold 533 leaf entries in the block while the Non-Unique index could only hold 500. Comparing the total sizes of the two indexes, the Unique index required 1875 leaf blocks while the Non-Unique index required 1999 leaf blocks.

That’s an increase of approximately 6.6% in leaf blocks required for the Non-Unique index to store exactly the same number of index entries as the Unique Index (in this particular example).

That’s 6.6% less storage, that’s a reduction of 6.6% in block splitting and block allocations, that’s a reduction of 6.6% in the cost of full index scans, that’s 6.6% less memory required to cache the index, etc. etc.

The point here is that these savings don’t require any expensive, periodic rebuilding of indexes. They doesn’t require any additional fancy scripts or additional monitoring and processing. The DBA doesn’t have to calculate irrelevant statistics or demand scheduled outages to claim these savings.

This a getting more “dollars for your buck”  freebie from Oracle purely and simply by using a Unique index instead of an Non-Unique index.

Note also that not one or two but ALL of your numeric based PKs have the potential to get these types of savings. Obviously the larger the actual PK or Unique key values, the lesser a byte is in proportion to the overall key length and the less percentage savings.

But it’s not a bad payback for many many of your indexes, purely and simply by using Unique indexes instead of Non-unique indexes where possible …

This is but one of the benefits of using Unique Indexes. More (potentially significant) advantages to follow …

Outlier Values – An Enemy Of The Index December 13, 2007

Posted by Richard Foote in Index Access Path, Indexing Tricks, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle General, Oracle Indexes, Outlier Values.
10 comments

Outlier values are basically values that sit way way outside the standard range of a column’s normal value range.

Data can be a funny thing and sometimes there are values that are naturally “exceptional”. However, very commonly, outlier values are used by applications to represent bizarre default values, to avoid confusion with legitimate values. For example, I look after an application that uses the American Date Of Independence as it’s “default” date.

Usually, these weird outlier values are used to avoid nulls values, as nulls can be problematic and can not be indexed (well actually you can index a null column but we’ll leave that for another blog entry).

However, outlier values while (maybe) solving one problem, can introduce some very significant problems in return.

Firstly, the CBO “hates” outlier values as it potentially totally screws up the CBO’s selectivity calculations. The selectivity of a range scan is basically calculated by the CBO to be the number of values in the range of interest divided by the full range of possible values (IE. the max value minus the min value). Therefore if this calculation is invalidated by a massive and disprotionate “hole” in the full range of possible values, the CBO can get things horribly wrong.

See here for a simple demonstration:  Outlier Selectivity Problem

Additionally, indexes “hate” outlier values as it prevents Oracle using the 90-10 block split to keep indexes nice and compact and is forced to use 50-50 block splits instead. Basically a 90-10 block split is considered if and only if the index entry to be inserted is equal or greater than the current maximum value.  An outlier value that is also the maximum value,  usually means monotonically increasing values (such as sequences, dates, etc.) don’t actually insert the maximum value. Therefore, not only do indexes perform 50-50 splits but this 50% of free space is never used, as all new values are all almost, but not quite, maximum values.

Little demo to highlight this problem: Outlier Index Space Utilisation Problem 

In summary, avoid outlier values if at all possible.  They generally cause more problems than they solve !!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,821 other followers