Jonathan - you are correct on the oddities, but there is no unique constraint. The row is unique however, and there are only about 30 rows in the table. I think I have any typos corrected below. Oracle support says it is a bug, no patch available yet, and the work around is to set _optimizer_use_feedback=false. Now I need to figure out the ramifications of doing that. > SELECT 'Data4', > wdata.created, > wdata.value2 > FROM wdata, wbedata > WHERE wbedata.my_number = '888888' > AND (wdata.created <= (select trim(value_string) from other.parm_value > where job_type = 'D TEST' and parm_type = 'B END') || '-23.59.59.999999' > AND (wdata.created >= (select trim(value_string) from other.parm_value > where job_type = 'D TEST' and parm_type = 'B START') || '-23.59.59.999999')) > AND (wdata.created = wbedata.created) > AND (wdata.value2 = wbedata.value2) > AND (wdata.value3 = wbedata.value3) > ORDER BY wdata.created; Sent from my iPad > On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:15 AM, Jonathan Lewis <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > I'm assuming, by the way, that any oddities in the sample code are just the > result of trying to edit out the confidential stuff. > > In particular: I've asssumed that there's a unique constraint on (job_type, > parm_type) so that the optimizer can "know" that there's only a single > possible value; and I've assumed that the subquery is written to supply the > column type and hasn't thrown in another obfuscating factor by causing column > conversion. > > > Regards > Jonathan Lewis > http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com > @jloracle > From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf > of Jonathan Lewis [jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 31 October 2014 08:57 > To: Andrew Kerber; Mark W. Farnham > Cc: Howard Latham; oracle-l > Subject: RE: Really strange performance issue > > > Looking at the code, I think Sayan's comment is the relevant one. > > Waving my hands and guessing WILDLY - but I suspect I could create a data set > where this happens: > > The optimizer is probably handling your subqueries as "unknown constant", > which gives you a range scan on unknown values which gives the optimizer a > guess of 0.25% - hence the application of cardinality feedback. > On the first pass the optimizer drives off the created date - and discovers > that it does a lot more work than expected (more rows), so on the second pass > it reverses the join, which turns out to be a bad idea because the > optimizer's estimated cardinality of '88888' (which doesn't get modified by > the first pass) is badly wrong and/or the chosen access path back into wdata > is much less efficient than expected. > > > Regards > Jonathan Lewis > http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com > @jloracle > From: Andrew Kerber [andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 31 October 2014 01:32 > To: Mark W. Farnham > Cc: Jonathan Lewis; Howard Latham; oracle-l > Subject: Re: Really strange performance issue > > Below is a heavily redacted version of the query, all columns names and > values changed,as I said it is pretty straightforward, > > SELECT 'Data4', > wdata.created, > wdata.value2 > FROM wdata, wbedata > WHERE wbedata.my_number = '888888' > AND (wdata.created <= (select trim(value_string) from other.parm_value > where job_type = 'D TEST' and parm_type = 'B END') || '-23.59.59.999999' > AND (wdata.created >= (select trim(value_string) from other.parm_value > where job_type = 'D TEST' and parm_type = 'B START') || '-23.59.59.999999')) > AND (wdata.created = wbedata.created) > AND (wdata.value2 = wbedata.value2) > AND (wdata.value3 = wbedata.value3) > ORDER BY wdata.created; > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +42 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> On Behalf Of Jonathan Lewis >> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:00 PM >> To: andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx; Howard Latham >> Cc: oracle-l >> Subject: RE: Really strange performance issue >> >> >> >> Although we generally expect cardinality feedback to result in better plans >> it's possible that a change in plan could change the order in which the data >> driving (e.g.) a scalar subquery is accessed, increasing the number of times >> a subquery is executed without changing the number of rows returned in the >> rowsource. If by "embedded select" you actually mean a scalar subquery it's >> possible that the main query does look more efficient to the optimizer, but >> the scalar subquery runs far more time. Easy to detect if you enable >> rowsource execution statistics (e.g. add hint gather_plan_statistics) and >> use the 'allstats last' format option with dbms_xplan.display_cursor(). >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> Jonathan Lewis >> http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com >> @jloracle >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on >> behalf of Andrew Kerber [andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 30 October 2014 14:51 >> To: Howard Latham >> Cc: oracle-l >> Subject: Re: Really strange performance issue >> >> I'll have to see if I can remove identifying information, but there is >> really nothing special about it, basically a two table join with a couple of >> embedded selects to get a date range. The plan is the same in both cases. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Howard Latham <howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > >> > Any chance of seeing the Query please? >> -- >> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l >> >> >> -- >> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > > -- > Andrew W. Kerber > > 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'