I have one complex SQL queries. One of the simple part of the queries looks like:
Query 1:
SELECT *
FROM table1 t1, table2 t2
WHERE t1.number = t2.number
AND UPPER(t1.name) = UPPER(t2.name)
AND t1.prefix = p_in_prefix;
Query 2:
SELECT *
FROM table1 t1, table2 t2
WHERE t1.number = t2.number
AND UPPER(t1.name) = UPPER(p_in_prefix || t2.name)
AND t1.prefix = p_in_prefix;
I have function based index on table1 as (number, UPPER(name)). I have function based index on my table2 as (number, UPPER(NAME)). p_in_prefix is a input parameter (basically a number).
Because of these indexes my Query 1 runs efficiently. But Query 2 has a performance issue, as in Query 2, 't2.name' is prefixed with p_in_prefix.
I can not create function based index for Query 2 because p_in_prefix is a input parameter and I don't know while creating index, what values it might hold. How to resolve performace issue in this scenario? Any hint/idea would be appreciated. If you require more information, please let me know.
Thanks.
Use AND UPPER(t1.name) = UPPER(p_in_prefix) || UPPER(t2.name).
As you have a function based index as UPPER(NAME) of table2, you should have an operand with the same expression in the query in order to make use of the function based index.
Using UPPER(p_in_prefix || t2.name) will not use the function based index as this does not match the function expression UPPER(NAME). Note here that using UPPER(t2.name) does not cause any problems as t2 is just a column alias.
Along with this, you can also pass an optimizer hint in your query in order to instruct the optimizer to use the index.
For more information read "Oracle Database 11g SQL" by Jason Price.
Also read Oracle Docs here and here and for optimizer hints here.
Related
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.
Currently I am trying to find all the unique indexes defined in a table which are NOT NULL for Oracle database. What I mean by that is, Oracle allows creating unique indexes on columns which are even defined as NULL.
So if my table has two unique indexes, I want to retrieve the particular unique index which is having all the columns having the NOT NULL constraints.
I did come up with this query:
select ind.index_name, ind_col.column_name, ind.index_type, ind.uniqueness
from sys.dba_indexes ind
inner join sys.dba_ind_columns ind_col on ind.owner = ind_col.index_owner and ind.index_name = ind_col.index_name
where ind.owner in ('ISADRM') and ind.table_name in ('TH_RHELOR') and ind.uniqueness IN ('UNIQUE')
The above query is giving me all the unique indexes with the associated columns, but I am not sure, how should I join the above query with ALL_TAB_COLS which has the NULLABILITY data for all the columns of a table.
I tried joining this table with indexes and tried subquery as well, but not getting appropriate results.
Hence, would request you to please comment on same.
Analytic functions and inline views can help.
The analytic functions let you return detailed data but also create a summary on that data, based on separate windows. The detailed results include index owner, index name, and column name, but the counts are only per index owner and index name.
The first inline view joins the three tables, returns the detailed information, and has analytic functions to generate the count of all columns and the count of all nullable columns. The second inline view only selects rows where those two counts are equal.
--Unique indexes and columns where every column is NOT NULL.
select owner, index_name, column_name
from
(
--All relevant columns and counts of columns and not null columns.
select
dba_indexes.owner,
dba_indexes.index_name,
dba_tab_columns.column_name,
dba_tab_columns.nullable,
count(*) over (partition by dba_indexes.owner, dba_indexes.index_name) total_columns,
sum(case when nullable = 'N' then 1 else 0 end)
over (partition by dba_indexes.owner, dba_indexes.index_name) total_not_null_columns
from dba_indexes
join dba_ind_columns
on dba_indexes.owner = dba_ind_columns.index_owner
and dba_indexes.index_name = dba_ind_columns.index_name
join dba_tab_columns
on dba_ind_columns.table_name = dba_tab_columns.table_name
and dba_ind_columns.column_name = dba_tab_columns.column_name
where dba_indexes.owner = user
and dba_indexes.uniqueness = 'UNIQUE'
order by 1,2,3
)
where total_columns = total_not_null_columns
order by 1,2,3;
Analytic functions and inline views are tricky but they're very powerful once you learn how to use them.
I want to compare a a value against 2 values without using OR or DECODE. The value I want to compare with two values is the one which I am getting as a return code of a function. If I use OR or DECODE then I have to call function twice and it gives performance hit. Currently I am coding as below
select *
from table1 t1, table2 t1
where t1.empid = t2.empid
and myfunction(t2.balance) = t1.total OR myfunction(t2.balance) = -1
Please suggest if there is a way to call function once and compare with 2 values.
To shorten your code you could use IN operator which acts like OR.
select *
from table1 t1
join table2 t1 on
t1.empid = t2.empid
and myfunction(t2.balance) in (t1.total, -1)
I've also replaced old-fashioned join syntax in where clause for JOIN keyword and you're advised to be using that in your future SQL journeys.
Good thing to know would be that even though you call the function twice, most modern databases would actually call it only once, so I wouldn't be that much concerned about it.
I have following query:
select id,
c1,
c2,
c3
from tbl t1
join
(select id
from tbl t2
where upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')) like upper(?)
) j
on j.id = t1.id
? is some wildcard parameter string like %test%.
c5 column has index on the function used to access it:
create index tbl_c5_idx on tbl(upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')))
When I run just inner query it uses tbl_c5_idx, however when I run the whole query it turns into full table scan which is much slower.
Are there any way to avoid full table scans? Hints or rewrite join condition. I can not rewrite whole query as inner query is constructed dynamically depending on the input conditions.
A very basic example to test your functionality
create table test(id number,value varchar2(200));
insert into test values(1,'gaurav is bad guy');
insert into test values(2,'gaurav is good guy');
SELECT *
FROM test
WHERE UPPER (REPLACE (VALUE, ' ', '')) LIKE UPPER ('%gauravisbad%');
before creating index this is doing a full table scan for obvious reason ,because no index get created.
create index tbl_c5_idx on test(upper(replace(value, ' ', '')));
The reason why i am asking you to avoid inner join on the same table because you're using the table twice once to get your records from your filter condition where your index are used and then join on the basis of id which is preventing of using index ,because you dont have index on id column,this can be done with a simple filter condition.
Please let me know if you're again finding out the same issue of full table scan ,or you're not getting the same result from this query .
if you're running the subquery only, it doesn't use the id column in the filters the way the parent query does, therefore the index can be used. In the parent query you are using the id as well, which prevents the index from being used. Maybe adding an index on (id, upper(replace(c5, ' ', ''))) would solve the problem.
Gaurav Soni is right: you don't need a subquery to achieve your goal.
always check performances rather than the explain plan. Performances might just be worst with your hint than without. Oracle is NOT stupid.
Seems I found solution, or at least a thing that helps.
I used index hint, so access is done with tbl_c5_idx.
That is how final query looks now:
select /*+ index(t1) */ id,
c1,
c2,
c3
from tbl t1
join
(select id
from tbl t2
where upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')) like upper(?)
) j
on j.id = t1.id
I have a query as follows
select *
from
( select id,sum(amt) amt from table_t group by id
) t inner join table_v v on (v.id = t.id)
order by t.amt desc;
table_t has no index and has 738,000 rows and table_v has an index on id and has 158,000 rows.
The query currently fetches the results in 10 seconds.
The explain query plan shows a full table scan.. How can I improve the performance here ?
If I add an index on id for table_t will it help. Because I am using it in a subquery ?
If you have an index on (id,amt) you would minimise the work in the group by/summation process (as it could read the index). If both columns are nullable then you may need to add a "where id is not null" so it will use the index. [That's implied by the later join on id, but may not get inferred by the optimizer.]
Next step would be to use a materialized view for the summation, maybe with an index on (amt,id) (which it could use to avoid the sort). But that is refreshed either at a commit or on request or at scheduled intervals. It doesn't help if you need to do this query as part of a transaction.
Both the index and the materialized view would add work to inserts/updates/deletes on the table but save work in this query.