RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- From: "Lex de Haan" <lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:12:28 +0200
no, not always -- but for a COUNT(*) any index on a NOT NULL column is good
enough for a fast full scan. probably, scanning the non-unique index seems
cheaper -- less blocks?
Kind regards,
Lex.
---------------------------------------------
visit my website at http://www.naturaljoin.nl
---------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
jaysingh1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 13:58
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
Hi All,
All stats are upto date.
Is there any specific reason why the optmizer is going through the
NON-UNIQUE index instead of PK index?
In otherwords,
NON-UNIQUE index = (COST=947)
PK index = (Cost=17825) [using hint to use PK index]
Does it mean that UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
SQL>
1* SELECT COUNT(*) FROM US_PROFILE_TABLE
SQL> /
COUNT(*)
----------
482639
EXECUTION PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------
0 SELECT STATEMENT OPTIMIZER=CHOOSE (COST=947 CARD=1)
1 0 SORT (AGGREGATE)
2 1 INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF 'US_PROFILE_TABLE_FK10' (NON-UNIQU
E) (COST=947 CARD=479439)
***US_PROFILE_TABLE_FK10 is a NON-UNIQUE index on LEVELID column.***
SQL> SELECT LEVELID,COUNT(*) FROM US_PROFILE_TABLE GROUP BY LEVELID;
LEVELID COUNT(*)
---------- ----------
0 477912
30 1507
60 3223
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: Lex de Haan.vcf
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- From: Mark W. Farnham
- References:
- UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- From: jaysingh1
Other related posts:
- » UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » Re: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » Re: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » Re: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- » RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- RE: UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- From: Mark W. Farnham
- UNIQUE scan is always costlier than NON-UNIUQE scan?
- From: jaysingh1