Costing Concatenated Indexes With Range Scan Predicates Part II (Coming Back To Life) July 27, 2022
Posted by Richard Foote in Automatic Indexing, CBO, Column Statistics, Concatenated Indexes, Explain Plan For Index, Full Table Scans, Index Access Path, Index Column Order, Index Column Reorder, Index Internals, Index statistics, Leaf Blocks, Non-Equality Predicates, Oracle, Oracle Blog, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle General, Oracle Index Seminar, Oracle Indexes, Oracle Statistics, Performance Tuning, Richard Foote Training.add a comment
In my previous Part I post, I discussed how the CBO basically stops the index leaf block access calculations after a non-equality predicate. This means that for an index with the leading indexed column being accessed via an unselective non-equality predicate, a large percentage of the index’s leaf blocks might need to be scanned, making the index access path unviable.
In the example in Part I, an index on the ID, CODE columns was too expensive due to the unselective range-scan predicate based on the leading ID column.
To provide the CBO a potentially much more efficient access path, we need an index with the more selective CODE predicate to be the leading column:
SQL> CREATE INDEX radiohead_code_id_i ON radiohead(code, id); Index created. SQL> SELECT index_name, blevel, leaf_blocks, clustering_factor FROM user_indexes WHERE index_name = 'RADIOHEAD_CODE_ID_I'; INDEX_NAME BLEVEL LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- RADIOHEAD_CODE_ID_I 1 265 98619
If we now re-run the previous query:
SQL> SELECT * FROM radiohead WHERE id BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000 AND CODE = 140;
Execution Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4 | 72 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| RADIOHEAD | 4 | 72 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | RADIOHEAD_CODE_ID_I | 4 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
7 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
806 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
608 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
4 rows processed
We notice the CBO is now using this new index, as the costs for this index-based plan have dropped significantly, down to just 6 (from the previous 116). This overall cost of 6 is lower than the cost of 105 for the Full Table Scan and hence the reason why this index-based plan is now chosen by the CBO.
This is all due entirely to the significant drop in costs in accessing the index itself, now just 2 (from the previous 112).
Importantly, these much lower costs are accurate as we can tell via the reduced number of consistent reads, now just 7 (from 114 from the previous index-based plan).
If we now look at the associated costings:
Effective Index Selectivity = CODE selectivity x ID selectivity
= (1/10000) x ((5000-1000)/(10000-1) + 2 x (1/10000))
= 0.0001 x ((4000/9999) + 0.0002)
= 0.0001 x 0.40024)
= 0.000040024
Effective Table Selectivity = same as Index Selectivity
= 0.000040024
The effective index selectivity of 0.000040024 is now much lower than the previous (0.40024), as the CBO can now consider the product of the selectivities of both columns).
If we now plug this improved effective index selectivity into the index path costing calculations:
Index IO Cost = blevel +
ceil(effective index selectivity x leaf_blocks) +
ceil(effective table selectivity x clustering_factor)
Index IO Cost = 1 + ceil(0.000040024 x 265) + ceil(0.000040024 x 99034)
= 1 + 1 + 4
= 2 + 4
= 6
Index Access Cost = IO Costs + CPU Costs (in this plan, 0% of total costs and so unchanged from the IO costs)
= 2 + 4
= 6
We can see how the respective 2 and 6 improved CBO index costings are derived.
So again, it’s important to note that Automatic Indexing is doing entirely the correct thing with these examples, when it creates an index with the equality based predicate columns as the leading columns of the index…
Costing Concatenated Indexes With Range Scan Predicates Part I (Nothing To Be Desired) July 22, 2022
Posted by Richard Foote in BLEVEL, CBO, Clustering Factor, Concatenated Indexes, Index Access Path, Index Column Order, Index Column Reorder, Leaf Blocks, Non-Equality Predicates, Oracle, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle General, Oracle Indexes, Performance Tuning, Richard Foote Consulting, Richard Foote Training, Richard's Blog.1 comment so far
In my previous post, I discussed how Automatic Indexing ordered columns when derived from SQLs containing both equality and non-equality predicates.
I’ve since had offline questions asking why indexes are more effective with leading columns addressing the equality predicates rather than the leading columns addressing non-equality predicates. Based on the theory that for everyone who asks a question, there are likely numerous others wondering the same thing, I thought I’ll try to explain things with these posts.
I’ll start by creating the following simple table that has two columns (ID and CODE) that are both highly selective (they both have 10,000 distinct values in a 100,000 rows table, so 10 rows approximately per value):
SQL> CREATE TABLE radiohead (id NUMBER, code NUMBER, name VARCHAR2(42)); Table created. SQL> INSERT INTO radiohead SELECT mod(rownum,10000)+1, ceil(dbms_random.value(0,10000)), 'RADIOHEAD' FROM dual CONNECT BY LEVEL <= 100000; 100000 rows created. SQL> commit; Commit complete.
I’ll next create an index based on the ID, CODE columns, with importantly the ID column as the leading column:
SQL> CREATE INDEX radiohead_id_code_i ON radiohead(id, code); Index created. SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(ownname=>null, tabname=>'RADIOHEAD', estimate_percent=> null, method_opt=> 'FOR ALL COLUMNS SIZE 1'); PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
When it comes to costing index accesses, some of the crucial statistics including the Blevel, Leaf_Blocks and often most crucial of all, the Clustering_Factor:
SQL> SELECT index_name, blevel, leaf_blocks, clustering_factor FROM user_indexes WHERE index_name = 'RADIOHEAD_ID_CODE_I'; INDEX_NAME BLEVEL LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR -------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- RADIOHEAD_ID_CODE_I 1 265 99034
We begin by running the following query, with an equality predicate on the ID column and a relatively large, non-selective range predicate on the CODE column:
SQL> SELECT * FROM radiohead WHERE id = 42 AND CODE BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000;
Execution Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4 | 72 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| RADIOHEAD | 4 | 72 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | RADIOHEAD_ID_CODE_I | 4 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
8 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
824 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
608 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
5 rows processed
As (perhaps) expected, the CBO uses the index to retrieve the small number of rows (just 5 rows).
However, if we run the following query which also returns a small number of rows (just 4 rows) BUT with the relatively unselective, non-equality predicate based on the leading indexed ID column:
SQL> SELECT * FROM radiohead WHERE id BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000 AND CODE = 140;
Execution Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4 | 72 | 105 (11)| 00:00:01 |
|* 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| RADIOHEAD | 4 | 72 | 105 (11)| 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
363 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
770 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
608 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
4 rows processed
We notice (perhaps unexpectedly) that the CBO now ignores the index and uses a Full Table Scan, even though only 4 rows are returned from a 100,000 row table.
This is a common area of confusion. Why does Oracle not use the index when both columns in the index are referenced in the SQL predicates and only a tiny number of rows are returned?
The answer comes down to the very unselective non-equality predicate (ID BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000) being serviced by the leading column (ID) of the index.
The “ID BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000” predicate basically covers 40% of all known ID values, which means Oracle must now read 40% of all Leaf Blocks within the index (one leaf block at a time), starting with ID =1000 and ending with ID = 5000. Although there are very few rows that then subsequently match up with the other (CODE = 140) predicate based on the second column (CODE) of the index, these relatively few values could exist anywhere within the 40% ID range.
Therefore, when costing the reading of the actual index, the CBO basically stops its calculations after the non-equality predicate on this leading ID column and indeed estimates that a full 40% of the index itself must be scanned.
If we force the CBO into a range scan via a basic index hint:
SQL> SELECT /*+ index(r) */ * FROM radiohead r WHERE id BETWEEN 1000 AND 5000 AND CODE = 140;
Execution Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4 | 72 | 116 (4)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| RADIOHEAD | 4 | 72 | 116 (4)| 00:00:01 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | RADIOHEAD_ID_CODE_I | 4 | | 112 (4)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
114 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
806 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
608 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
4 rows processed
We notice that the overall cost of this index based plan is 116, greater than the 105 cost of the Full Table Scan (and hence why the Full Table Scan was selected). We also notice that the vast majority of this 116 cost can be attributed to the index scan itself in the plan, which has a cost of 112.
If you have a calculator handy, this is basically how these costs are derived.
Range Selectivity = (Max Range Value–Min Range Value)/(Max Column Value–Min Column Value)
Effective Index Selectivity = Range Selectivity + 2 x ID density (as a BETWEEN clause was used which is inclusive of Min/Max range)
= (5000-1000)/(10000-1) + 2 x (1/10000)
= 0.40004 + 0.0002
= 0.40024
Effective Table Selectivity = ID selectivity (as above) x CODE selectivity
= 0.40024 x (1/10000)
= 0.40024 x 0.0001
= 0.000040024
These selectivities are then inserted into the following index costing formula:
Index IO Cost = blevel +
ceil(effective index selectivity x leaf_blocks) +
ceil(effective table selectivity x clustering_factor)
Index IO Cost = 1 + ceil(0.40024 x 265) + ceil(0.000040024 x 99034)
= 1 + 107 + 4
= 108 + 4 = 112.
Index Access Cost = IO Costs + CPU Costs (in this plan, 4% of total costs)
= (108 + (112 x 0.04)) + (4 + (4 x 0.04))
= (108 + 4) + (4 + 0)
= 112 + 4
= 116
So we can clearly see how the CBO has made its calculations, come up with its costs and has decided that the Full Table Scan is indeed the cheaper alternative with the current index in place.
So Automatic Indexing is doing the right thing, by creating an index with the leading column based on the equality predicate and the second indexed column based on the unselective non-equality predicate.
I’ll expand on this point in an upcoming Part II post.
Automatic Indexing 21c: Non-Equality Predicate Anomaly (“Strangers When We Meet”) July 14, 2022
Posted by Richard Foote in 21c New Features, Automatic Indexing, Autonomous Database, Autonomous Transaction Processing, CBO, Exadata, Exadata X8, Full Table Scans, Index Column Order, Invisible Indexes, Non-Equality Predicates, Oracle, Oracle 21c, Oracle Blog, Oracle Cloud, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle Indexes, Performance Tuning, Richard Foote Training, Richard's Blog.3 comments
I’m currently putting together some Exadata related training for a couple of customers and came across a rather strange anomaly with regard the status of Automatic Indexes, when created in part on unselective, non-equality predicates.
As discussed previously, Oracle Database 21c now allows the creation of Automatic Indexes based on non-equality predicates (previously, Automatic Indexes were only created on equality-based predicates).
But one appears to get rather odd resultant Automatic Indexes in the scenario where the non-equality predicate is not particularly selective but other predicates are highly selective.
To illustrate, I’ll create a basic table that has two columns (ID and CODE) that are both highly selective:
SQL> create table ziggy_new (id number, code number, name varchar2(42)); Table created. SQL> insert into ziggy_new select rownum, mod(rownum, 1000000)+1, 'David Bowie' from dual connect by level <= 10000000; 10000000 rows created. SQL> commit; Commit complete. SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(ownname=>null, tabname=>'ZIGGY_NEW'); PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
So there are currently no indexes on this table.
I’ll next run the following SQL (and others similar) a number of times:
SQL> select * from ziggy_new where code=42 and id between 1 and 100000;
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3165184525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU) | Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
| * 1 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - storage("CODE"=42 AND "ID"<=100000 AND "ID">=1)
filter("CODE"=42 AND "ID"<=100000 AND "ID">=1)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
38605 consistent gets
38600 physical reads
0 redo size
725 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
52 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
Without any indexes, the CBO currently has no choice but to use a Full Table Scan.
But only 1 row is returned. The first equality predicate on the CODE column is highly selective and on its own would only return 10 rows out of the 10M row table. The second, non-equality range-based predicate on the ID column is nowhere near as selective and offers limited additional filtering.
The CBO stops calculating index related costs after a non-equality predicate column (as subsequent column values could exist anywhere within the preceding range), and so the more effective index here is one based on (CODE, ID) with the non-equality predicate column second, or potentially just on the CODE column only, as the ID range offers minimal filtering benefits.
So what does Automatic Indexing make of things?
If we look at the subsequent Automatic Indexing report:
SUMMARY (AUTO INDEXES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Index candidates : 3 Indexes created (visible / invisible) : 1 (0 / 1) Space used (visible / invisible) : 209.72 MB (0 B / 209.72 MB) Indexes dropped : 0 SQL statements verified : 44 SQL statements improved (improvement factor) : 12 (64.7x) SQL plan baselines created : 0 Overall improvement factor : 1.6x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY (MANUAL INDEXES) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unused indexes : 0 Space used : 0 B Unusable indexes : 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDEX DETAILS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following indexes were created: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Owner | Table | Index | Key | Type | Properties | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | BOWIE | ZIGGY_NEW | SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j | CODE,ID | B-TREE | NONE | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Automatic Indexing has indeed created an index based on CODE,ID (a common Automatic Indexing trait appears to be to create an index based on all available predicates).
BUT the index is created as an INVISIBLE Index and so can not generally be used by database sessions.
SQL> select index_name, auto, visibility, status, num_rows, leaf_blocks, clustering_factor
from user_indexes where table_name='ZIGGY_NEW';
INDEX_NAME AUT VISIBILIT STATUS NUM_ROWS LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR
------------------------------ --- --------- -------- ---------- ----------- -----------------
SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j YES INVISIBLE VALID 10000000 25123 10000000
SQL> select index_name, column_name, column_position
from user_ind_columns where table_name='ZIGGY_NEW';
INDEX_NAME COLUMN_NAME COLUMN_POSITION
------------------------------ ------------ ---------------
SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j CODE 1
SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j ID 2
So re-running the previous SQL statements continues to use a Full Table Scan:
SQL> select * from ziggy_new where code=42 and id between 1 and 100000;
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3165184525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU) | Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
| * 1 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - storage("CODE"=42 AND "ID"<=100000 AND "ID">=1)
filter("CODE"=42 AND "ID"<=100000 AND "ID">=1)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
38605 consistent gets
38600 physical reads
0 redo size
725 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
52 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
Automatic Indexing appears to only create Invisible indexes when there is an inefficient non-equality predicate present. It won’t create the index as a Visible index, even though it would significantly benefit these SQL statements that caused its creation. And Automatic Indexing won’t create an index on just the highly selective CODE equality predicate, which would also be of much benefit to these SQL statements.
If we now run similar queries, but with much more selective non-equality predicates, such as:
SQL> select * from ziggy_new where code=1 and id between 1 and 10;
no rows selected
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3165184525
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU) | Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
| * 1 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 6738 (2) | 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - storage("CODE"=1 AND "ID"<=10 AND "ID">=1)
filter("CODE"=1 AND "ID"<=10 AND "ID">=1)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
38604 consistent gets
38600 physical reads
0 redo size
503 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
41 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
1 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
0 rows processed
Again, with no (Visible) index present, the CBO currently has no choice but to use the Full Table Scan.
But during the next cycle, after Automatic Indexing kicks in again:
SUMMARY (AUTO INDEXES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index candidates : 5
Indexes created (visible / invisible) : 1 (1 / 0)
Space used (visible / invisible) : 209.72 MB (209.72 MB / 0 B)
Indexes dropped : 0
SQL statements verified : 89
SQL statements improved (improvement factor) : 31 (71.9x)
SQL plan baselines created : 0
Overall improvement factor : 1.7x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY (MANUAL INDEXES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unused indexes : 0
Space used : 0 B
Unusable indexes : 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX DETAILS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following indexes were created:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Owner | Table | Index | Key | Type | Properties |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| BOWIE | ZIGGY_NEW | SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j | CODE,ID | B-TREE | NONE |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERIFICATION DETAILS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The performance of the following statements improved:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parsing Schema Name : BOWIE
SQL ID : d4znwcu4h52ca
SQL Text : select * from ziggy_new where code=42 and id between 1 and 10
Improvement Factor : 38604x
Execution Statistics:
-----------------------------
Original Plan Auto Index Plan
---------------------------- ----------------------------
Elapsed Time (s): 3398605 68
CPU Time (s): 3166824 68
Buffer Gets: 463250 3
Optimizer Cost: 6738 4
Disk Reads: 463200 0
Direct Writes: 0 0
Rows Processed: 0 0
Executions: 12 1
PLANS SECTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
- Original
-----------------------------
Plan Hash Value : 3165184525
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | | | 6738 | |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 6738 | 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- With Auto Indexes
-----------------------------
Plan Hash Value : 1514586396
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 4 | 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 4 | 00:00:01 |
| * 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j | 1 | | 3 | 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
------------------------------------------
* 2 - access("CODE"=42 AND "ID">=1 AND "ID"<=10)
Notes
-----
- Dynamic sampling used for this statement ( level = 11 )
But this time, the index on the CODE,ID columns is created as a Visible index.
INDEX_NAME AUT VISIBILIT STATUS NUM_ROWS LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR ------------------------------ --- --------- -------- ---------- ----------- ----------------- SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j YES VISIBLE VALID 10000000 25123 10000000 SQL> select index_name, column_name, column_position from user_ind_columns where table_name='ZIGGY_NEW'; INDEX_NAME COLUMN_NAME COLUMN_POSITION ------------------------------ ------------ --------------- SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j CODE 1 SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j ID 2
So this index can be generally used, both by the newer SQLs that generated the now Visible index:
SQL> select * from ziggy_new where code=42 and id between 1 and 10;
no rows selected
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 1514586396
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU) | Time |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 4 (0) | 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 4 (0) | 00:00:01 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j | 1 | | 3 (0) | 00:00:01 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - access("CODE"=42 AND "ID">=1 AND "ID"<=10)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
3 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
503 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
41 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
1 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
0 rows processed
And also used by the SQLs with the unselective non-equality predicates, that Automatic Indexing would only create as Invisible indexes:
SQL> select * from ziggy_new where code=42 and id between 1 and 100000;
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 1514586396
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU) | Time |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 23 | 4 (0) | 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED | ZIGGY_NEW | 1 | 23 | 4 (0) | 00:00:01 |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SYS_AI_75j16xff1ag3j | 1 | | 3 (0) | 00:00:01 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - access("CODE"=42 AND "ID">=1 AND "ID"<=100000)
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
5 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
729 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
52 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
Automatic Indexing appears to currently not quite do the right thing with SQL statements that have unselective non-equality predicates, by creating such indexes as only Invisible Indexes, inclusive of the unselective columns.
Although an edge case, I would recommend looking through the list of created Automatic Indexes to see if any such Invisible/Valid indexes exists, as it can suggest there are current inefficient SQL statements that could benefit from such indexes being Visible.
Upcoming Webinar Series Now Sold Out!! (“White Light White Heat”) July 13, 2022
Posted by Richard Foote in Richard Foote Consulting, Richard Foote Seminars, Richard Foote Training.add a comment
My upcoming webinars now have the maximum number of attendees I’m comfortable in having in one session and are now officially sold out!!
Taking my inspiration from David Bowie’s famous 1973 farewell speech, not only is this the last webinar series of the year, but it’s likely the last webinar series I’ll ever do.
A huge thank you to everyone who has enrolled, I’m absolutely sure we’re all going to have a blast 🙂
If you were interested in attending this training, please contact me to get yourself on a waiting list (although I unfortunately have no timeframe in which I’m likely to run another series) : richard@richardfooteconsulting.com.
Richard Foote's Oracle Blog 