Consider this SQL statement:
select *
from chamado.servico se
join chamado.chamado ch on ch.id_servico=se.id_servico
join chamado.statuschamado sc on sc.id_statuschamado=ch.id_statuschamado
where sc.id_statuschamado=1
;
Now consider the corresponding execution plan:
Now Pay close attention ibn the red box! The filter predicate (CH.ID_STATUSCHAMADO=1). It is not in the query and it is the most expensive operation.
The table SERVICO has less than 200 rows, the table STATUSCHAMADO has less than 10 rows, but the table CHAMADO has more than 70000 rows.
My intention with those joins where to have full table scan only on STATUSCHAMADO and SERVICO, what was supposed to impose a lite overhead on Oracle.
What is wrong in my statement?
Update 1
I have the following indices:
CHAMADO.ID_CHAMADO (PK)
CHAMADO.ID_SERVICO
CHAMADO.ID_AREAATENDIMENTO
SERVICO.ID_SERVICO (PK)
AREAATENDIMENTO.ID_AREAATENDIMENTO (PK)
"The filter predicate (CH.ID_STATUSCHAMADO=1)...is not in the query" - perhaps not directly, but that's what's really happening. You're joining STATUSCHAMADO sc to CHAMADO ch on sc.ID_STATUSCHAMADO = ch.ID_STATUSCHAMADO, then in your WHERE clause you have sc.ID_STATUSCHAMADO = 1.
The database is smart enough to figure out that sc.ID_STATUSCHAMADO will always be 1, and therefore can substitute CHAMADO.ID_STATUSCHAMADO = 1. You also might try reversing the fields on the new index on STATUSCHAMADO - try it as (ID_STATUSCHAMADO, ID_SERVICO) as well as (ID_SERVICO, ID_STATUSCHAMADO).
I have two table of my store and working on Oracle. Image First table describe about my transaction in store, there are two types of transaction (MR & SR), MR means adding products in Store and SR means removing products from my storage. What I wanted to do get the final closing of my storage. After transaction final Quantity every products as shown in Image. I have tried many solution but can't finish it. so I could not show now. Please help me to sort this problem. Thanks
You can use case as below to decrease and increase the quantity based on type and then group by Name and find the sum of quantity derived from the case statement to get your desired result.
select row_number() over (order by a.Name) as Sl,a.Name, sum(a.qntity) as qntity
from
(select t2.Name,case when t1.type='MR' then t2.qntity else -(t2.qntity) end as qntity
from table1 t1,table2 t2 where t1.oid=t2.table01_oid) a
group by a.Name;
This query will provide result as below:
SL NAME QNTITY
1 Balls 0
2 Books 6
3 Pencil 13
So, I have been doing a fair amount of reading on this in various forums and resource sites but have not yet found found a solution I believe applies to my case. Also, I can't believe how difficult this is proving to be; I would think this kind of query would be fairly common.
Essentially what I am doing here is querying two historical tables (tbl_b and tbl_c), via union, for a specific milestone date - for which there may be multiple results... I then wish to find the most recent of these results, using max. This date is then returned as a column in the main query.
My problem is that, in the 3rd tier subquery, I need to reference an identifier value from the table in the top query (tbl_a).
I know that correlated queries only are able to reference their parent query - so, I am stuck.
Edit 1
The target date I am searching for will most likely, but not necessarily, be unique within the result set. It is a timestamp of the data record. I am looking for the most recent entry in the history that correlates to each column in tbl_a. Creating an SQL Fiddle for this.
See sample below:
select tbl_a.col_a,
tbl_a.col_b,
(
select max(target_date)
from
(
select tbl_b.target_date
from tbl_b
where tbl_b.tbl_a_id = tbl_a.id and
tbl_b.flag = 1 and
tbl_b.milestone_id = tbl_a.milestone_id
union
select tbl_c.target_date
from tbl_c
where tbl_c.tbl_a_id = tbl_a.id and
tbl_c.flag = 1 and
tbl_c.milestone_id = tbl_a.milestone_id
) most_recent_target_date
)
from tbl_a
Convert this query to a join, in this way:
select tbl_a.col_a,
tbl_a.col_b,
max(most_recent_target_date.target_date)
from tbl_a
join (
select tbl_b.target_date, tbl_b.date_id
from tbl_b
where tbl_b.flag = 1
union all
select tbl_c.target_date, tbl_c.date_id
from tbl_c
where tbl_c.flag = 1
) most_recent_target_date
ON tbl_a.date_id = most_recent_target_date.date_id
GROUP BY tbl_a.col_a,
tbl_a.col_b
The easiest way to ask my question is with a Hypothetical Scenario.
Lets say we have 3 tables. Singapore_Prices, Produce_val, and Bosses_unreasonable_demands.
So Prices is a pretty simple table. Item column containing a name, and a Price column containing a number.
Produce_Val is also simple 2 column table. Type column containing what type the produce is (Fruit or veggie) and then Name column (Tomato, pineapple, etc.)
The Bosses_unreasonable_demands only contains one column, Fruit, which CAN contain the names of some fruits.
OK? Ok.
SO, My boss wants me to write a query that returns the prices for every fruit in his unreasonable demands table. Simple enough. BUT, if he doesn't have any entries in his table, he just wants me to output the prices of ALL fruits that exist in produce_val.
Now, assuming I don't know where the DBA who designed this silly hypothetical system lives (and therefore can't get him to fix this), our query would look like this:
if <Logic to determine if Bosses demands are empty>
Then
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Fruit from Bosses_Unreasonable_demands)
Else
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Name from Produce_val where type = 'Fruit')
end if;
(Well, we'd select those into a variable, and then output the variable, probably with bulk-collect shenanigans, but that's not important)
Which works. It is entirely functional, and won't be slow, even if we extend it out to 2000 other stores other than Singapore. (Well, no slower than anything else that touches 2000 some tables) BUT, I'm still doing two different select statements that are practically identical. My Comp Sci teacher rolls in their grave every time my fingers hit ctrl-V. I can cut this code in half and only do one select statement. I KNOW I can.
I just have no earthly idea how. I can't use cursors as an in statement, I can't use nested tables or varrays, I can't use cleverly crafted strings, I... I just... I don't know. I don't know how to do this. Is there a way? Does it exist?
Or do I have to copy/paste forever?
Your best bet would be dynamic SQL, because you can't parameterize table or column names.
You will have a SQL query template, have a logic to determine tables and columns that you want to query, then blend them together and execute.
Another aproach, (still a lot of ctrl-v like code) is to use set construction UNION ALL:
select 1st query where boss_condition
union all
select 2nd query where not boss_condition
Try this:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT s.*, 'BOSS' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS b
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON s.ITEM = b.FRUIT
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) x
UNION ALL
(SELECT s.*, 'NORMAL' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM PRODUCE_VAL p
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON (s.ITEM = p.NAME AND
s.TYPE = 'Fruit')
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) n
WHERE (BOSS_COUNT > 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'BOSS') OR
(BOSS_COUNT = 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'NORMAL')
Share and enjoy.
I think you can use nested tables. Assume you have a schema-level nested table type FRUIT_NAME_LIST (defined using CREATE TYPE).
SELECT fruit
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM bosses_unreasonable_demands
;
IF my_fruit_name_list.count = 0 THEN
SELECT name
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM produce_val
WHERE type='Fruit'
;
END IF;
SELECT item, price
FROM singapore_prices
WHERE item MEMBER OF my_fruit_name_list
;
(or, WHERE item IN (SELECT column_value FROM TABLE(CAST(my_fruit_name_list AS fruit_name_list)) if you like that better)
Have the following tables (Oracle 10g):
catalog (
id NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR2(255),
owner NUMBER,
root NUMBER REFERENCES catalog(id)
...
)
university (
id NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
...
)
securitygroup (
id NUMBER PRIMARY KEY
...
)
catalog_securitygroup (
catalog REFERENCES catalog(id),
securitygroup REFERENCES securitygroup(id)
)
catalog_university (
catalog REFERENCES catalog(id),
university REFERENCES university(id)
)
Catalog: 500 000 rows, catalog_university: 500 000, catalog_securitygroup: 1 500 000.
I need to select any 50 rows from catalog with specified root ordered by name for current university and current securitygroup. There is a query:
SELECT ccc.* FROM (
SELECT cc.*, ROWNUM AS n FROM (
SELECT c.id, c.name, c.owner
FROM catalog c, catalog_securitygroup cs, catalog_university cu
WHERE c.root = 100
AND cs.catalog = c.id
AND cs.securitygroup = 200
AND cu.catalog = c.id
AND cu.university = 300
ORDER BY name
) cc
) ccc WHERE ccc.n > 0 AND ccc.n <= 50;
Where 100 - some catalog, 200 - some securitygroup, 300 - some university. This query return 50 rows from ~ 170 000 in 3 minutes.
But next query return this rows in 2 sec:
SELECT ccc.* FROM (
SELECT cc.*, ROWNUM AS n FROM (
SELECT c.id, c.name, c.owner
FROM catalog c
WHERE c.root = 100
ORDER BY name
) cc
) ccc WHERE ccc.n > 0 AND ccc.n <= 50;
I build next indexes: (catalog.id, catalog.name, catalog.owner), (catalog_securitygroup.catalog, catalog_securitygroup.index), (catalog_university.catalog, catalog_university.university).
Plan for first query (using PLSQL Developer):
http://habreffect.ru/66c/f25faa5f8/plan2.jpg
Plan for second query:
http://habreffect.ru/f91/86e780cc7/plan1.jpg
What are the ways to optimize the query I have?
The indexes that can be useful and should be considered deal with
WHERE c.root = 100
AND cs.catalog = c.id
AND cs.securitygroup = 200
AND cu.catalog = c.id
AND cu.university = 300
So the following fields can be interesting for indexes
c: id, root
cs: catalog, securitygroup
cu: catalog, university
So, try creating
(catalog_securitygroup.catalog, catalog_securitygroup.securitygroup)
and
(catalog_university.catalog, catalog_university.university)
EDIT:
I missed the ORDER BY - these fields should also be considered, so
(catalog.name, catalog.id)
might be beneficial (or some other composite index that could be used for sorting and the conditions - possibly (catalog.root, catalog.name, catalog.id))
EDIT2
Although another question is accepted I'll provide some more food for thought.
I have created some test data and run some benchmarks.
The test cases are minimal in terms of record width (in catalog_securitygroup and catalog_university the primary keys are (catalog, securitygroup) and (catalog, university)). Here is the number of records per table:
test=# SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM catalog), (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM catalog_securitygroup), (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM catalog_university);
?column? | ?column? | ?column?
----------+----------+----------
500000 | 1497501 | 500000
(1 row)
Database is postgres 8.4, default ubuntu install, hardware i5, 4GRAM
First I rewrote the query to
SELECT c.id, c.name, c.owner
FROM catalog c, catalog_securitygroup cs, catalog_university cu
WHERE c.root < 50
AND cs.catalog = c.id
AND cu.catalog = c.id
AND cs.securitygroup < 200
AND cu.university < 200
ORDER BY c.name
LIMIT 50 OFFSET 100
note: the conditions are turned into less then to maintain comparable number of intermediate rows (the above query would return 198,801 rows without the LIMIT clause)
If run as above, without any extra indexes (save for PKs and foreign keys) it runs in 556 ms on a cold database (this is actually indication that I oversimplified the sample data somehow - I would be happier if I had 2-4s here without resorting to less then operators)
This bring me to my point - any straight query that only joins and filters (certain number of tables) and returns only a certain number of the records should run under 1s on any decent database without need to use cursors or to denormalize data (one of these days I'll have to write a post on that).
Furthermore, if a query is returning only 50 rows and does simple equality joins and restrictive equality conditions it should run even much faster.
Now let's see if I add some indexes, the biggest potential in queries like this is usually the sort order, so let me try that:
CREATE INDEX test1 ON catalog (name, id);
This makes execution time on the query - 22ms on a cold database.
And that's the point - if you are trying to get only a page of data, you should only get a page of data and execution times of queries such as this on normalized data with proper indexes should take less then 100ms on decent hardware.
I hope I didn't oversimplify the case to the point of no comparison (as I stated before some simplification is present as I don't know the cardinality of relationships between catalog and the many-to-many tables).
So, the conclusion is
if I were you I would not stop tweaking indexes (and the SQL) until I get the performance of the query to go below 200ms as rule of the thumb.
only if I would find an objective explanation why it can't go below such value I would resort to denormalisation and/or cursors, etc...
First I assume that your University and SecurityGroup tables are rather small. You posted the size of the large tables but it's really the other sizes that are part of the problem
Your problem is from the fact that you can't join the smallest tables first. Your join order should be from small to large. But because your mapping tables don't include a securitygroup-to-university table, you can't join the smallest ones first. So you wind up starting with one or the other, to a big table, to another big table and then with that large intermediate result you have to go to a small table.
If you always have current_univ and current_secgrp and root as inputs you want to use them to filter as soon as possible. The only way to do that is to change your schema some. In fact, you can leave the existing tables in place if you have to but you'll be adding to the space with this suggestion.
You've normalized the data very well. That's great for speed of update... not so great for querying. We denormalize to speed querying (that's the whole reason for datawarehouses (ok that and history)). Build a single mapping table with the following columns.
Univ_id, SecGrp_ID, Root, catalog_id. Make it an index organized table of the first 3 columns as pk.
Now when you query that index with all three PK values, you'll finish that index scan with a complete list of allowable catalog Id, now it's just a single join to the cat table to get the cat item details and you're off an running.
The Oracle cost-based optimizer makes use of all the information that it has to decide what the best access paths are for the data and what the least costly methods are for getting that data. So below are some random points related to your question.
The first three tables that you've listed all have primary keys. Do the other tables (catalog_university and catalog_securitygroup) also have primary keys on them?? A primary key defines a column or set of columns that are non-null and unique and are very important in a relational database.
Oracle generally enforces a primary key by generating a unique index on the given columns. The Oracle optimizer is more likely to make use of a unique index if it available as it is more likely to be more selective.
If possible an index that contains unique values should be defined as unique (CREATE UNIQUE INDEX...) and this will provide the optimizer with more information.
The additional indexes that you have provided are no more selective than the existing indexes. For example, the index on (catalog.id, catalog.name, catalog.owner) is unique but is less useful than the existing primary key index on (catalog.id). If a query is written to select on the catalog.name column, it is possible to do and index skip scan but this starts being costly (and most not even be possible in this case).
Since you are trying to select based in the catalog.root column, it might be worth adding an index on that column. This would mean that it could quickly find the relevant rows from the catalog table. The timing for the second query could be a bit misleading. It might be taking 2 seconds to find 50 matching rows from catalog, but these could easily be the first 50 rows from the catalog table..... finding 50 that match all your conditions might take longer, and not just because you need to join to other tables to get them. I would always use create table as select without restricting on rownum when trying to performance tune. With a complex query I would generally care about how long it take to get all the rows back... and a simple select with rownum can be misleading
Everything about Oracle performance tuning is about providing the optimizer enough information and the right tools (indexes, constraints, etc) to do its job properly. For this reason it's important to get optimizer statistics using something like DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(). Indexes should have stats gathered automatically in Oracle 10g or later.
Somehow this grew into quite a long answer about the Oracle optimizer. Hopefully some of it answers your question. Here is a summary of what is said above:
Give the optimizer as much information as possible, e.g if index is unique then declare it as such.
Add indexes on your access paths
Find the correct times for queries without limiting by rowwnum. It will always be quicker to find the first 50 M&Ms in a jar than finding the first 50 red M&Ms
Gather optimizer stats
Add unique/primary keys on all tables where they exist.
The use of rownum is wrong and causes all the rows to be processed. It will process all the rows, assigned them all a row number, and then find those between 0 and 50. When you want to look for in the explain plan is COUNT STOPKEY rather than just count
The query below should be an improvement as it will only get the first 50 rows... but there is still the issue of the joins to look at too:
SELECT ccc.* FROM (
SELECT cc.*, ROWNUM AS n FROM (
SELECT c.id, c.name, c.owner
FROM catalog c
WHERE c.root = 100
ORDER BY name
) cc
where rownum <= 50
) ccc WHERE ccc.n > 0 AND ccc.n <= 50;
Also, assuming this for a web page or something similar, maybe there is a better way to handle this than just running the query again to get the data for the next page.
try to declare a cursor. I dont know oracle, but in SqlServer would look like this:
declare #result
table (
id numeric,
name varchar(255)
);
declare __dyn_select_cursor cursor LOCAL SCROLL DYNAMIC for
--Select
select distinct
c.id, c.name
From [catalog] c
inner join university u
on u.catalog = c.id
and u.university = 300
inner join catalog_securitygroup s
on s.catalog = c.id
and s.securitygroup = 200
Where
c.root = 100
Order by name
--Cursor
declare #id numeric;
declare #name varchar(255);
open __dyn_select_cursor;
fetch relative 1 from __dyn_select_cursor into #id,#name declare #maxrowscount int
set #maxrowscount = 50
while (##fetch_status = 0 and #maxrowscount <> 0)
begin
insert into #result values (#id, #name);
set #maxrowscount = #maxrowscount - 1;
fetch next from __dyn_select_cursor into #id, #name;
end
close __dyn_select_cursor;
deallocate __dyn_select_cursor;
--Select temp, final result
select
id,
name
from #result;