RE: Performance Difference Between != and <>?
- From: "Scott Canaan" <srcdco@xxxxxxx>
- To: "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:32:10 -0400
Jonathan,
Thank you for your answer. We did do an explain plan on both
versions of the statement and they were identical, which is what is so
puzzling about this. According to the documentation, the two forms of
not equal are the same (along with ^= and one other that I can't type),
so it makes no sense to me why there is any difference in performance.
Scott Canaan '88 (Scott.Canaan@xxxxxxx)
(585) 475-7886
"Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put
into it." - Tom Lehrer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Lewis [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:34 PM
To: Scott Canaan; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Performance Difference Between != and <>?
Try running your query through explain plan (or autotrace)
and see what that says -
SQL> select count(*) from t1 where id != 99;
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)|
Time |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 5 | 599 (6)|
00:00:08 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 5 | |
|
|* 2 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| T1_PK | 999K| 4882K| 599 (6)|
00:00:08 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter("ID"<>99)
According to this, "!=" is considered to be the same as "<>".
Similarly:
select count(*) from t1 where small_vc ='x' and exists (
select 1 from t1 where small_vc != 'Y'
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 11 | 9633 (2)|
00:01:56 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 11 | |
|
|* 2 | FILTER | | | | |
|
|* 3 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1 | 1 | 11 | 4816 (2)|
00:00:58 |
|* 4 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1 | 999K| 10M| 4816 (2)|
00:00:58 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT 0 FROM "T1" "T1" WHERE "SMALL_VC"<>'Y'))
3 - filter("SMALL_VC"='x')
4 - filter("SMALL_VC"<>'Y')
This was 10.2.0.1 - I'd be very surprised if any other version
of Oracle were significantly different.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/oracle_ace/ace1.html#lewis
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Canaan" <srcdco@xxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: Performance Difference Between != and <>?
Does anyone know why there's a big performance difference when using
!= vs. <>? I was just looking at a query that was written both ways and
there is a big difference in how long it takes to return data. The
query is:
Select count(*) from claws_doc_table where claws_doc_id = :id and exists
(select 1 from claws_person_id where status != 0);
If you use !=, it returns sub-second. If you use <>, it takes 7 seconds
to return. Both return the right answer. I've looked in the Oracle
documentation and can't find anything that would explain this. The
documentation says that they are interchangeable.
We are running Oracle 10.2.0.2 on Solaris 10, 64-bit.
Thank you,
Scott Canaan '88 (Scott.Canaan@xxxxxxx)
(585) 475-7886
"Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put
into it." - Tom Lehrer.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
