Performance with ROW_NUMBER - oracle

Question

I have a query which uses ROW_NUMBER(). I have something like this:
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY publish_date DESC) rnum
The query runs pretty fast. However, if I add any reference to the "rnum" column, the query slows to a crawl. So, it appears that just having ROW_NUMBER() is not the issue, but when I use the "rnum" in the actual query, it crawls for like 30 seconds.
Any thoughts?
For Reference, here is the query:
WITH aquire AS (
SELECT rtnum, trans_id, source, provider, publish_date, story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers
FROM (SELECT d.trans_id, d.source, 'AquireMedia' AS provider,
d.trans_time AS publish_date, '/research/get_news.php?id=' || d.trans_id AS story_link,
i.name AS industry_name, s.sector_name, d.headline AS subject, NULL AS teaser,
NEWS.NEWS_FUNCTIONS.CONCATENATE_TICKERS(d.trans_id,'AQUIREMEDIA') AS tickers,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY d.trans_id ORDER BY d.trans_time DESC) as rtnum
FROM story_descriptions_3m d, story_tickers_3m t, uber_master_mv m, industry i, ind_sector ix, sectors s, comp_ind c
WHERE d.trans_id = t.trans_id
AND t.m_ticker = m.m_ticker
AND t.m_ticker = c.m_ticker(+)
AND c.ind_code = i.ind_code(+)
AND i.ind_code = ix.ind_code(+)
AND ix.sector_id = s.sector_id(+) AND s.sector_id = 10 )
WHERE rtnum = 1),
partner AS (
SELECT rtnum, trans_id, source, provider, publish_date, story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers
FROM (SELECT CAST(n.story_id AS VARCHAR2(20)) trans_id, n.provider AS source, 'Partner News' AS provider,
n.story_date AS publish_date, n.link AS story_link, i.name AS industry_name, s.sector_name, n.title AS subject,
CAST(substr(n.teaser,1,4000) AS VARCHAR2(4000)) AS teaser, NEWS.NEWS_FUNCTIONS.CONCATENATE_TICKERS(n.story_id,'OTHER') AS tickers,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY n.story_id ORDER BY n.story_date DESC) as rtnum
FROM news_stories_3m n, news_stories_lookup_3m t, comp_ind c, uber_master_mv m, industry i, ind_sector ix, sectors s
WHERE t.story_id = n.story_id
AND t.ticker = m.ticker
AND m.m_ticker = c.m_ticker(+)
AND c.ind_code = i.ind_code(+)
AND i.ind_code = ix.ind_code(+)
AND ix.sector_id = s.sector_id(+) AND s.sector_id = 10 )
WHERE rtnum = 1)
SELECT trans_id, source, provider,
TO_CHAR(publish_date,'MM/DD/YYYY HH24:MI:SS') AS publish_date,
UNIX_TIMESTAMP(publish_date) AS timestamp,
story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers
FROM (SELECT trans_id, source, provider, publish_date, story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY publish_date DESC) rnum
FROM (SELECT trans_id, source, provider, publish_date, story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers
FROM aquire WHERE rtnum <= 5
UNION ALL
SELECT trans_id, source, provider, publish_date, story_link, industry_name, sector_name, subject, teaser, tickers
FROM partner WHERE rtnum <= 5))
WHERE rnum BETWEEN 1 AND 1 * 5;

Answer 1

Let simulate your query on a simple example to demonstrate and explain that you encounter expactable results.
Sample Data
create table tab1 as
select rownum id, lpad('x',3000,'y') pad from dual connect by level <= 1000000;
Now if you run a query below in your IDE, you will instantly see the first page of the result set.
Note, you define the row_numberbut do not use it.
select id, pad from (
select id, pad,
row_number() over (order by id) as rnum
from tab1
)
The answert is in the execution plan below
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1000K| 2866M| 135K (1)| 00:00:06 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TAB1 | 1000K| 2866M| 135K (1)| 00:00:06 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
you see that no sorting and filtering is performed, the row_number is simple ignored.
This (fetching only few initial rows and no sorting) explains why the query performs.
Contrary if you constraint on the row_number as follows
SQL> select id, pad from (
2 select id, pad,
3 row_number() over (order by id) as rnum
4 from tab1
5 ) where rnum between 1 and 5
6 ;
Elapsed: 00:00:07.80
You observe respectable elapsed time. Again the execution plan provides the answer.
See here how to get the execution plan for your query.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 5 | 7640 | | 762K (1)| 00:00:30 |
|* 1 | VIEW | | 5 | 7640 | | 762K (1)| 00:00:30 |
|* 2 | WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK| | 1000K| 2866M| 3906M| 762K (1)| 00:00:30 |
| 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAB1 | 1000K| 2866M| | 135K (1)| 00:00:06 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter("RNUM">=1 AND "RNUM"<=5)
2 - filter(ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY "ID")<=5)
The consequence is that now you must now go throu all records (in your case perform all the joins), which breaks the performance.
To prove it, run simple your performat query with a fetch all option or with added order by clause. It is quite possible that you will get the same non-performant result as in your second query.
Final Remark
Instead of the ROW_NUMBER() you may use the row_limiting_clause
Pass the ordering column from the row_number in the order by clause and use offset and fetch first to limit the result.
select id, pad from (
select id, pad
from tab1
) order by id
fetch first 5 rows only;
Under the cover you'll see the identical execution plan using the WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK as above.