Oracle ignores hint for index with synonym and 2 views - oracle

This is the query i am running:
select /*+ index(V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS.orders.T0 IDX_ORDER_VERSION_3) */ *
from V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS
where EXCHANGE_SK = 32 and PRODUCT_SK = 1000169
And it uses a different index than the one i am ordering it to.
As you can see, I am querying from the view V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS, you can see its sql query here:
V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS view SQL Query:
SELECT AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME) AS ORDER_DATE_TIME,
SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS VOLUME,
SUM(orders.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE*orders.BASE_VOLUME)/SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS PRICE,
orders.PRODUCT_SK AS PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK AS EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.DIRECTION_CD AS DIRECTION_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD AS AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY AS EXECUTING_REPRESENTATIVE_KEY,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY AS ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD AS BUSINESS_UNIT_CD
FROM AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW orders
INNER JOIN AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ACCOUNT a
ON a.ACCOUNT_KEY = orders.ACCOUNT_KEY
WHERE BASE_VOLUME > 0
GROUP BY AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME),
orders.PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY,
orders.DIRECTION_CD;
He is getting the data using the Synonym S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW, Which directs to another Scheme, to a view called V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION and refering to it as orders, its sql query here:
V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION view Sql query:
SELECT T1.ENTITY_KEY ,
T2.AGG_UNIT_CD ,
T0.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE ,
T7.DIRECTION_CD ,
T0.EXCHANGE_SK,
T0.ORDER_LOCAL_DATE_TIME ,
T0.PRODUCT_SK,
T18.ENTITY_KEY ,
T19.ENTITY_KEY ,
T0.NOTIONAL_VALUE2 ,
T0.NOTIONAL_VALUE ,
T0.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME ,
T0.BASE_VOLUME ,
T31.TRANSACTION_STATUS_CD ,
T0.ORDER_VERSION_KEY
FROM ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ORDER_VERSION T0
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T1
ON T0.ACCOUNT_SK = T1.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.AGG_UNIT T2
ON T0.AGG_UNIT_SK = T2.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.DIRECTION T7
ON T0.DIRECTION_SK = T7.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T18
ON T0.LOCAL_TIME_ZONE_SK = T18.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T19
ON T0.TRADER_SK = T19.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.TRANSACTION_STATUS T31
ON T0.TRANSACTION_STATUS_SK = T31.ENTITY_SK;
Which takes its data from a table called ORDER_VERSION and refers to it as T0
this table has an index called IDX_ORDER_VERSION
The problem is that oracle ignores my hint, And uses a different index, Now, I have managed to use a hint to make oracle use an index i wanted when i was querying a view that gets data from a table, But this time I am querying a view which gets his data from another view which gets his data from a table.
And also, The second view in the line is on a different Scheme and i am using a synonym, So perhaps that is why i am missing something Cuz i tried many combinations of possible solutions i found on google but nothing seems to be working...
I would say that if i go one step forward and query directly from V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION (Without the synonym) IT works and i can make oracle work with any index i want, so this query works perfect:
select /*+ index(orders.T0 IDX_ORDER_VERSION_5) */ * from V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION orders
where EXCHANGE_SK =32 and PRODUCT_SK = 1000169

Well me and our company's DBA looked at it for a while, it seems like an Oracle bug in the Global Hint manifestation, We have created the view V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS using a regular join rather than an ANSI join, and now it works properly:
V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS view SQL Query:
SELECT AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME) AS ORDER_DATE_TIME,
SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS VOLUME,
SUM(orders.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE*orders.BASE_VOLUME)/SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS PRICE,
orders.PRODUCT_SK AS PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK AS EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.DIRECTION_CD AS DIRECTION_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD AS AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY AS EXECUTING_REPRESENTATIVE_KEY,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY AS ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD AS BUSINESS_UNIT_CD
FROM AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW orders,
AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ACCOUNT a
WHERE BASE_VOLUME > 0 AND a.ACCOUNT_KEY = orders.ACCOUNT_KEY
GROUP BY AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME),
orders.PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY,
orders.DIRECTION_CD;

Related

Consecutive JOIN and aliases: order of execution

I am trying to use FULLTEXT search as a preliminary filter before fetching data from another table. Consecutive JOINs follow to further refine the query and to mix-and-match rows (in reality there are up to 6 JOINs of the main table).
The first "filter" returns the IDs of the rows that are useful, so after joining I have a subset to continue with. My issue is performance, however, and my lack of understanding of how the SQL query is executed in SQLite.
SELECT *
FROM mytbl AS t1
JOIN
(SELECT someid
FROM myftstbl
WHERE
myftstbl MATCH 'MATCHME') AS prior
ON
t1.someid = prior.someid
AND t1.othercol = 'somevalue'
JOIN mytbl AS t2
ON
t2.someid = prior.someid
/* Or is this faster? t2.someid = t1.someid */
My thought process for the query above is that first, we retrieve the matched IDs from the myftstbl table and use those to JOIN on the main table t1 to get a sub-selection. Then we again JOIN a duplicate of the main table as t2. The part that I am unsure of is which approach would be faster: using the IDs from the matches, or from t2?
In other words: when I refer to t1.someid inside the second JOIN, does that contain only the someids after the first JOIN (so only those at the intersection of prior and those for which t1.othercol = 'somevalue) OR does it contain all the original someids of the whole original table?
You can assume that all columns are indexed. In fact, when I use one or the other approach, I find with EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN that different indices are being used for each query. So there must be a difference between the two.
The query should be simplified to
SELECT *
FROM mytbl AS t1
JOIN myftstbl USING (someid) -- or ON t1.someid = myftstbl.someid
JOIN mytbl AS t2 USING (someid) -- or ON t1.someid = t2.someid
WHERE myftstbl.{???} MATCH 'MATCHME' -- replace {???} with correct column name
AND t1.othercol = 'somevalue'
PS. The query logic is not clear for me, so it is saved as-is.

Technical and syntax doubts about joins

i'm having a technical and syntax problem with JOINS in ORACLE.
If i have 7 tables, listed below:
FROM
QT_QTS.PLA_ORDEM_PRODUCAO pla,
qt_qts.res_tubo_austenitizacao aust,
qt_qts.res_tubo_revenimento1 res_rev1,
qt_qts.res_tubo_revenimento2 res_rev2,
limsprod.SAMPLE sp,
limsprod.test t,
limsprod.result r
I need to get ALL the data in the "limsprod.result r" table linked with similar corresponding data inside the qt_qts.res_tubo_austenitizacao aust, qt_qts.res_tubo_revenimento1 res_rev1 and qt_qts.res_tubo_revenimento2 res_rev2 tables.
How can I do this join using Oracle Database? I tried a left join, but it did not work.
It is impossible to answer that question. We have nothing but list of some tables. I'm not sure I'd even want to do that instead of you.
However, here's a suggestion: start with one table:
select * from limsprod.result r;
It'll return all rows. Then join it to another table:
select *
from limsprod.result r join qt_qts.res_tubo_austenitizacao aust on aust.id = r.id
and see what happens - did you get all rows you want? If not, should you add another JOIN condition? Perhaps an outer join? Don't move on to the third table until you sort that out. Once you're satisfied with the result, add another table:
select *
from limsprod.result r join qt_qts.res_tubo_austenitizacao aust on aust.id = r.id
join qt_qts.res_tubo_revenimento1 res_rev1 on res_rev1.idrr = aust.idrr
Repeat what's being said previously.

Entity Framework 4 generated queries are joining full tables

I have two entities: Master and Details.
When I query them, the resulting query to database is:
SELECT [Extent2]."needed columns listed here", [Extent1]."needed columns listed here"
FROM (SELECT * [Details]."all columns listed here"...
FROM [dbo].[Details] AS [Details]) AS [Extent1]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[Master] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[key] = [Extent2].[key]
WHERE [Extent1].[filterColumn] = #p__linq__0
My question is: why not the filter is in the inner query? How can I get this query? I've tried a lot of EF and Linq expressions.
What I need is something like:
SELECT <anything needed>
FROM Master LEFT JOIN Details ON Master.key = Details.Key
WHERE filterColumn = #param
I'm having a full sequential scan in both tables, and in my production environment, I have milions of rows in each table.
Thanks a lot !!
Sometimes The entity Framework does not produce the best query. You can do a few of the following to optimize.
Modify the linq statement (test with
LINQPad)
Create a stored proc and map the stored proc to return an entity
Create a view that handles the join and map the view to a new
entity

Efficient Alternative to Outer Join

The RIGHT JOIN on this query causes a TABLE ACCESS FULL on lims.operator. A regular join runs quickly, but of course, the samples 'WHERE authorised_by IS NULL' do not show up.
Is there a more efficient alternative to a RIGHT JOIN in this case?
SELECT full_name
FROM (SELECT operator_id AS authorised_by, full_name
FROM lims.operator)
RIGHT JOIN (SELECT sample_id, authorised_by
FROM lims.sample
WHERE sample_template_id = 200)
USING (authorised_by)
NOTE: All columns shown (except full_name) are indexed and the primary key of some table.
Since you're doing an outer join, it could easily be that it actually is more efficient to do a full table scan rather than use the index.
If you are convinced the index should be used, force it with a hint:
SELECT /*+ INDEX (lims.operator operator_index_name)*/ ...
then see what happens...
No need to nest queries. Try this:
select s.full_name
from lims.operator o, lims.sample s
where o.operator_id = s.authorised_by(+)
and s.sample_template_id = 200
I didn't write sql for oracle since a while, but i would write the query like this:
SELECT lims.operator.full_name
FROM lims.operator
RIGHT JOIN lims.sample
on lims.operator.operator_id = lims.sample.authorized_by
and sample_template_id = 200
Does this still perform that bad?

Linq To Entity Framework selecting whole tables

I have the following Linq statement:
(from order in Orders.AsEnumerable()
join component in Components.AsEnumerable()
on order.ORDER_ID equals component.ORDER_ID
join detail in Detailss.AsEnumerable()
on component.RESULT_ID equals detail.RESULT_ID
where orderRestrict.ORDER_MNEMONIC == "MyOrderText"
select new
{
Mnemonic = detail.TEST_MNEMONIC,
OrderID = component.ORDER_ID,
SeqNumber = component.SEQ_NUM
}).ToList()
I expect this to put out the following query:
select *
from Orders ord (NoLock)
join Component comp (NoLock)
on ord .ORDER_ID = comp.ORDER_ID
join Details detail (NoLock)
on comp.RESULT_TEST_NUM = detail .RESULT_TEST_NUM
where res.ORDER_MNEMONIC = 'MyOrderText'
but instead I get 3 seperate queries that select all rows from the tables. I am guessing that Linq is then filtering the values because I do get the correct values in the end.
The problem is that it takes WAY WAY too long because it is pulling down all the rows from all three tables.
Any ideas how I can fix that?
Remove the .AsEnumerable()s from the query as these are preventing the entire query being evaluated on the server.

Resources