7

Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing: Indexing With Stale Statistics Part III (Do Anyth...

 3 years ago
source link: https://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2020/10/08/oracle-19c-automatic-indexing-indexing-with-stale-statistics-part-iii-do-anything-you-say/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.

Oracle 19c Automatic Indexing: Indexing With Stale Statistics Part III (Do Anything You Say) October 8, 2020

Posted by Richard Foote in 19c, 19c New Features, Automatic Indexing, Autonomous Data Warehouse, Autonomous Database, Autonomous Transaction Processing, CBO, Exadata, Full Table Scans, Index Access Path, Index statistics, Oracle, Oracle Cloud, Oracle Cost Based Optimizer, Oracle General, Oracle Indexes, Oracle Statistics, Performance Tuning, Stale Statistics.
trackback

do-anything-you-say.jpg?w=300&h=297

In Part I of this series, we saw how Automatic Indexing will not create a viable Automatic Index if there are stale or missing statistics on the underlining segments. In Part II we saw how these SQL statements effectively become blacklisted and when segment statistics are subsequently collected, Automatic Indexing will still not create viable Automatic Indexes when the SQL statements are re-run.

So how do we get Automatic Indexing to now kick in and create necessary indexes on these problematic SQLs?

As I’ve discussed previously in relation to blacklisted SQLs, we need to run a NEW SQL statement that hasn’t been blacklist that will result in a necessary index to be created. An easy way to do this is just to include a new comment within the previous SQL to give the SQL a new signature.

If we now run the following “new” SQL statement (identical to the problematic SQL but with a comment embedded):

SQL> select /* new */ * from bowie_stale where code=42;
ID       CODE NAME
---------- ---------- ------------------------------------------
1000041         42 David Bowie
6000041         42 David Bowie
41         42 David Bowie
3000041         42 David Bowie
7000041         42 David Bowie
8000041         42 David Bowie
4000041         42 David Bowie
9000041         42 David Bowie
5000041         42 David Bowie
2000041         42 David Bowie

If we now wait to see what the next Automatic Indexing task makes of things:

SQL> select dbms_auto_index.report_last_activity('text', 'ALL', 'ALL' ) report from dual;
REPORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity start              : 07-JUL-2020 06:34:49
Activity end                : 07-JUL-2020 06:35:54
Executions completed        : 1
Executions interrupted      : 0
Executions with fatal error : 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY (AUTO INDEXES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index candidates                             : 0
Indexes created (visible / invisible)        : 1 (1 / 0)
Space used (visible / invisible)             : 142.61 MB (142.61 MB / 0 B)
Indexes dropped                              : 0
SQL statements verified                      : 1
SQL statements improved (improvement factor) : 1 (19787.7x)
SQL plan baselines created                   : 0
Overall improvement factor                   : 19787.7x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY (MANUAL INDEXES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unused indexes   : 0
Space used       : 0 B
Unusable indexes : 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX DETAILS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The following indexes were created:
*: invisible
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Owner | Table       | Index                | Key  | Type   | Properties |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| BOWIE | BOWIE_STALE | SYS_AI_300kk2unp8tr0 | CODE | B-TREE | NONE       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We see that the index on the CODE column (SYS_AI_300kk2unp8tr0) has now been created.

Further down the report:

VERIFICATION DETAILS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The performance of the following statements improved:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parsing Schema Name : BOWIE
SQL ID              : du6psd0xmzpg5
SQL Text            : select /* new */ * from bowie_stale where code=42
Improvement Factor  : 19787.7x
Execution Statistics:
-----------------------------
Original Plan Auto           Index Plan
---------------------------- ----------------------------
Elapsed Time (s): 137261                       2620
CPU Time (s):     84621                        1769
Buffer Gets:      277028                       13
Optimizer Cost:   544                          13
Disk Reads:       275947                       2
Direct Writes:    0                            0
Rows Processed:   70                           10
Executions:       7                            1

A new index was indeed created because of this new SQL statement, with a performance improvement of 19787.7x.

Further down the report to the Plans Section:

PLANS SECTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Original
-----------------------------
Plan Hash Value : 65903426
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation                | Name        | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Time        |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT          |             |      |       |  544 |             |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS STORAGE FULL | BOWIE_STALE |   10 |   230 |  544 | 00:00:01    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
-----
- dop = 1
- px_in_memory_imc = no
- px_in_memory = no
- With Auto Indexes
-----------------------------
Plan Hash Value : 2558864466
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                           | Name                 | Rows | Bytes | Cost | Time       |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                    |                      |   10 |   230 |   13 | 00:00:01   |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED | BOWIE_STALE          |   10 |   230 |   13 | 00:00:01   |
| * 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN                    | SYS_AI_300kk2unp8tr0 |   10 |       |    3 | 00:00:01   |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
------------------------------------------
* 2 - access("CODE"=42)
Notes
-----
- Dynamic sampling used for this statement ( level = 11 )

We can see that the new plan using the new Automatic Index with a much lower CBO cost.

If we now look at the status of this index:

SQL> select index_name, auto, constraint_index, visibility, compression, status, num_rows, leaf_blocks, clustering_factor
from user_indexes where table_name='BOWIE_STALE';
INDEX_NAME                     AUT CON VISIBILIT COMPRESSION   STATUS     NUM_ROWS LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR
------------------------------ --- --- --------- ------------- -------- ---------- ----------- -----------------
BOWIE_STALE_PK                 NO  YES VISIBLE   DISABLED      VALID      10000000       20164             59110
SYS_AI_300kk2unp8tr0           YES NO  VISIBLE   ADVANCED LOW  VALID      10000000       16891          10000000

We see that the index is now both VISIBLE and VALID (previously, it was INVISIBLE and UNUSABLE).

As such, the Automatic Index can now potentially be used by any SQL, including the previous problematic query.

So with a viable index now in place, if we re-run the initial problematic query:

SQL> select * from bowie_stale where code=42;
10 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2558864466
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation                          | Name                 | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  0 | SELECT STATEMENT                   |                      |   10 |   230 |      14 (0)| 00:00:01    |
|  1 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| BOWIE_STALE          |   10 |   230 |      14 (0)| 00:00:01    |
|* 2 | INDEX RANGE SCAN                   | SYS_AI_300kk2unp8tr0 |   10 |       |       3 (0)| 00:00:01    |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - access("CODE"=42)
Note
-----
- automatic DOP: Computed Degree of Parallelism is 1
Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
14 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
738 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
361 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed

We see that finally, the SQL uses the new Automatic Index and is indeed much more efficient as a result, with just 14 consistent gets required (when previously it was 39430 consistent gets).

So if ever you come across the scenario where an SQL does not have an Automatic Index created when clearly it should, it could be that it has been blacklisted and needs a different SQL to actually generate the necessary index.

To avoid some of these issues, make sure you do not have stale or missing statistics when reliant on Automatic Indexing. The new High Frequency Statistics Collection capability to designed to specifically avoid such a scenario.

Comments»

221c3f09218acbd0e531a996ef15fef8?s=32&d=identicon&r=G 1. Ashu - October 13, 2020

In REPORT only, if it suggest an Automatic Index(invisible) how can we make it visible (in-use). I don’t want to use Implement option. It should be always REPORT only in the Database.

d665f0bedd1b771fb94defcaae359a7e?s=32&d=identicon&r=GRichard Foote - October 20, 2020

Hi Ashu

The answer is not easily as you can alter the visibility of an Auto Index.

An option would be to record the details, drop the Auto Index and then create the index again manually.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply


report

Recommend

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK