RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: "Marco Gralike" <Marco.Gralike@xxxxxxx>
- To: <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:58:01 +0200
A made a post for my special "count(*)" test case called : XMLDB Performance:
The Side Effects of a Simple "count(*)" (http://www.liberidu.com/blog/?p=494
<http://www.liberidu.com/blog/?p=494> )
Thanks you all for finding some of the answers.
Regards
Marco
________________________________
Van: Jonathan Lewis [mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Verzonden: za 19-7-2008 10:33
Aan: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Performance off "count(*)"
Marco,
XMLType table are a version of object tables, which means
they have a hidden OID column called sys_nc_oid$.
The problem seems to be that the sys_nc_oid$ column
(the objects unique object id) does not get declared with
a not null constraint. So the unique index on this column
cannot be used for the count.
I can't think of a mechanism that could (legally) ever allow
the OID to be null, so it seems that you should be safe
issuing
alter table XXX modify sys_nc_oid$ not null;
If you do, then Oracle will automatically use the index
in the count(*).
I'd raise an SR to get confirmation that this is safe before
doing it on live data though.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com <http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com/>
Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html
The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Gralike" <Marco.Gralike@xxxxxxx>
To: "Gints Plivna" <gints.plivna@xxxxxxxxx>; "Riyaj Shamsudeen"
<riyaj.shamsudeen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:25 PM
Subject: RE: Performance off "count(*)"
Thanks all for the examples. A lot (re-)think and I guess I will have to do some
further testing.
In case you wonder, I am working on a: XMLType table, based on Binary XML
Securefile storage with has the compression parameter set to high.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- References:
- RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Marco Gralike
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Riyaj Shamsudeen
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Gints Plivna
- RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Marco Gralike
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Jonathan Lewis
Other related posts:
- » Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- » Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- » RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Marco Gralike
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Riyaj Shamsudeen
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Gints Plivna
- RE: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Marco Gralike
- Re: Performance off "count(*)"
- From: Jonathan Lewis