RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- From: Wolfgang Breitling <breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Laimutis.Nedzinskas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:18:45 -0600
At 12:57 PM 6/29/2006, Laimutis Nedzinskas wrote:
>From: Wolfgang Breitling [mailto:breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>This is probably your problem right there. Earlier you were claiming
that you
had a histogram on the type (status?) column. Your above
gather_table_stats call
does not create a histogram on any columns of TEST_CBO. "FOR ALL COLUMNS
SIZE
AUTO" creates histograms ONLY on columns that have been used in a
predicate.
Since this is a brand new table none of the columns have of course been
used in
a predicate yet, so no histograms are created.
[snip]
This is exactly what I noticed before: plan may change just like that
w/o no reason. It's enough just to issue explain plan several times. Is
2 a magic number? May be.
It's not for no reason. The reason is that you gather statistics with
method_opt=>'for all columns size auto'. If you don't want this kind
of surprise - or others related to statistics - take control of the
statistics gathering. Control
- when: date and times
- what: which tables, indexes, and columns
- how: what sampling rate, what method_opt and other parameters.
You don't just take init.ora defaults, why would you accept the
statistics gathering defaults?
Regards
Wolfgang Breitling
Centrex Consulting Corporation
www.centrexcc.com
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- References:
- RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- From: Laimutis Nedzinskas
Other related posts:
- » full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » Re: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- » RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
>From: Wolfgang Breitling [mailto:breitliw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >This is probably your problem right there. Earlier you were claiming that you had a histogram on the type (status?) column. Your above gather_table_stats call does not create a histogram on any columns of TEST_CBO. "FOR ALL COLUMNS SIZE AUTO" creates histograms ONLY on columns that have been used in a predicate. Since this is a brand new table none of the columns have of course been used in a predicate yet, so no histograms are created.
[snip]
This is exactly what I noticed before: plan may change just like that w/o no reason. It's enough just to issue explain plan several times. Is 2 a magic number? May be.
Regards
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- RE: full-scan vs index for "small" tables
- From: Laimutis Nedzinskas