Just quick thoughts - replace the distincts with group by, this might allow
group by placement to happen for you.
The inner distinct doesn’t seem to be executed as a distinct, there might
be clues in the outline if it’s decided that it only need wants to do a
sort.
I’ll have a closer look when I can
Thanks,
Andy
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 15:39, Goti <aryan.goti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan for the quick response!
I tried for the first 2 workarounds and that didn't work as expected. I
will work on the 3rd and 4th action plan and update here.
Thanks,
Goti
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:41 PM Jonathan Lewis <jlewisoracle@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The two queries may return the same size result, but the 2019 report
generates and aggregates roughly 12 times as much data as the 2018 report.
Check the "Actual Rows" figures - the 2018 report hits 3M rows (and 3M
execs of the subsequent table probes) while the 2919 report hits 39M
rows/execs - and that's where a lot of time goes on CPU.
Strangely (almost) all the data is passed to one PX server (at operation
13/14, I think) that blows it up through segement NL joins to get most of
the 39M rows that have to be "buffer sorted" (i.e. buffered, but not
actually sorted) which is where the temp space and I/O time goes.
Possible workarounds
- MAYBE if you tried parallel 7 rather than 8 the hash disrtibution at
operation MIGHT be better balanced;
- MAYBE if you set "_gby_hash_aggregation_enabled" to false and got a
SORT UNIQUE instead of a hash unique the distribution would work better.
- if you get the outline information for the plan you should be able to
find the pq_distribute hint controls the distribution at operation 14 and
change it from a hash distribution to a round-robin - this will probably
introduce a 2nd layer of aggregation/uniqueness, but two small, shared
stages may well do better than one very large operation.
- can you rewrite the query to eliminate duplication earlier. This may
require you to include inline non-mergeable views: ideally you want to
avoid generating 39M rows at any point and then executing 39M join steps as
that will still account for a lot of your time.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 12:15, Goti <aryan.goti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Environment : 11.2.0.4 database running on Linux.
Need help to understand parallel query performance issues. Below are the
query details and its associated plans. The 2018_query does execute in 24
seconds and returns about 2.5K rows. The 2019_query is also expected to
process almost the same number of rows however it consumes a lot of TEMP
space and finally fails. The 2019_query without parallel completes in 45
minutes (Just by removing the parallel hint). The only difference between
both the queries is related to the predicate "opclf.year_number =
to_number('YYYY')". The stats are up to date for the tables are partitions.
2019_query:
https://gist.github.com/aryangoti/a7704a8075f118f7d942e49acee1900d
2018_query:
https://gist.github.com/aryangoti/a7704a8075f118f7d942e49acee1900d
Stats and other details:
https://gist.github.com/aryangoti/a3797424ce0cb4fd87e194c05ad099b6
Thanks,
Goti
