RE: Cost/Time Anomaly

don't get hung up on comparing the "costs" of 2 different queries.  cost is 
used by the CBO to give it a relative comparison of different plans for the 
SAME query.  just think of it that way instead.  
 
the point is, if you want to outer join all 20M rows from B1 to 2 other ~20M 
row tables, then hash joins are very likely to be the fastest and least costly 
way to get the job done.  now if you want to see some of the rows sooner, there 
might be something you could do to accomplish that.  but if you want all the 
rows returned as fast as possible, you may already have it.
 
just curious - what are you going to do with all those rows?

-----Original Message-----
From: blr_dba [mailto:deepak_blr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Steve Ollig; ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Cost/Time Anomaly


Thanks for your reply...
 
There is no filter in this query. 
 
Want to know why in second case the cost is less but time taken to execute the 
query is more...?
 
Any suggestion on improving the performance of the query? I have two CPUs and 
the big tables are hash partitioned on ID column into two partitions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steve  <mailto:sollig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ollig 
To: deepak_blr@xxxxxxxxxxx ; ORACLE-L <mailto:oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:10 AM
Subject: RE: Cost/Time Anomaly

And your resultset will contain at least as many rows as B1 (~20M as you said), 
perhaps many more - correct?  Given that, and the fact that B2 and B3 also 
contain ~20M rows, the CBO seems to be making a perfectly logical choice.
 
Is it possible you don't want such a large resultset returned?  Is there a 
filter you left off that would limit the # of rows?

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On 
Behalf Of blr_dba
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:03 PM
To: 'ORACLE-L'
Subject: Cost/Time Anomaly


Hi Gurus,
 
Am stuck in a tuning problem and need your expertise to get rid of the issue. 

I have 3 huge tables(~20M rows each) and many small look up tables joined in a 
query as follows... 

Assume: 
Big tables : BT1, BT2, BT3 
Small tables: ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6 

select * from BT1, BT2, BT3, ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5, ST6 
where 
BT1.id=BT2.id(+) and 
BT1.id=BT3.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST1.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST2.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST3.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST4.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST5.id(+) and 
BT1.id=ST6.id(+); 

The CBO is using hash joins and the cost is too high (400K) and we are having a 
lots of "direct path write waits". 

I tried to remove the outer joins for the small lookup tables by using sclar 
sub-queries. The cost reduced drastically (10K) but the overall execution time 
got increased. 

Badly need your expertise to get rid of this issue. 

Also would like to know even if the CBO cost is less in the second case, why 
the overall execution time is more. Is n't the cost inversly proportional to 
the time taken to execute the query? 



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

Other related posts: