Re:CBO and cartesian product

Hi Tim/John,

Thanks a lot for such detailed reply. Tim, As you said, I verified the relationship between the tables. Its two parent and one child table relationship.

John, thanks for referring that metalink note. For time being, I can use RULE hint and make it work.

PS: Tim, 'CUT TO THE CHASE...' part of your paper is great. It will take me a little while to read whole paper but still I got the story. (Difficult to attend whole day trainings and then work)...

Thanks a lot again,

~Dilip     

ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com wrote:

Tim/Dilip,

Unfortunately, as this is an 'Apps' instance, the parameters DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT should be set to 8 and the OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING parameter should *not* be set (letting it default)... This is as per ML Note 216205.1 - non compliance = "not supported".

Since this is a customized report though, you *may* be able to get away with setting them within the program (or reverting to RULE as a quick fix)....

John Kanagaraj
DB Soft Inc
Phone: 408-970-7002 (W)

Listen to great, commercial-free christian music 24x7x365 at http://www.klove.com

• The opinions and facts contained in this message are entirely mine and do not reflect those of my employer or customers **

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Gorman [mailto:tim_at_sagelogix.com]
>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:14 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: Re: CBO and cartesian product
>
>
>Here is the short answer:
>=========================
>
> * Set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING to 90
> * Make sure that DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT is not overly high
> * Also, consider gathering column-level statistics on some of the
> indexed columns involved, especially if the query in question
> uses literal data values on them
>
>Here is the long answer:
>========================
>
>Starting in the 8i timeframe, the CBO started borrowing some
>techniques from
>data warehouse STAR joins when confronted with any type of query that
>traversed two different entity-relationship heirarchies
>starting from the
>same table.
>
>Say you have three tables (to keep it simple). One table is a "child"
>entity to the other two tables, which are both "parent" entities in ERD
>terms. The CBO detects that both "parent" tables are much
>smaller than the
>"child" table.
>
>OK, so there is no relationship between the two parent tables
>-- they are
>both "related" only through the large child table.
>
>Now, think about what traditional join methods are possible:
>
> 1) start with one of the parent tables as the "driving table", do a
> indexed nested-loop range-scan during the join to the
>child table,
> and then perform indexed nested-loop unique-scan during
>the final
> join to the other parent table
> 2) reverse the order of option #1. Start with the other parent
> table, join to the child, and then join up to the
>remaining parent
> 3) start with the child table and join up (via indexed
>unique-scans)
> to the two parent tables
>
>The weak point of both of these options is probably the access
>of the child
>table. Plain and simple, it is difficult to efficiently get
>rows from it.
>It is likely that the index supporting the foreign-key
>relationship from
>either parent table is not very efficient by itself, resulting
>in a very
>expensive range-scan, requiring a massive number of logical
>I/Os and "cost"
>calculated by the CBO.
>
>So, the CBO in 8i started utilizing another option, which
>initially blew my
>mind first time I saw it happen. It was the point which I
>realized that the
>CBO was _way_ smarter than humans...
>
>This additional option is to perform a "cartesian join" between the two
>parent tables, to come up with one result set. Then, using
>the filtered
>cartesian result set from that join, the CBO probes into the
>large child
>table using the _combined_ keys from both parent tables!
>
>Rather brilliant choice, in most cases. The cartesian join, despite
>everybody's visceral fear of it, is actually rather
>insignificant if the two
>parent tables are small. And it is even smaller if there are good
>"filtering" predicates on those tables in the WHERE clause.
>
>So, instead of having to retrieve rows from the large child
>table using one
>or the other of the relatively ineffective indexes supporting
>each foreign
>key, the CBO merges and uses both keys, resulting in a far
>more effective
>access method into the child table.
>
>So, chances are good that this is the situation you are
>facing. Is this
>correct? Can you verify the basic relationships between the tables
>involved?
>
>So, now the question is: why did the CBO make the wrong choice?
>
>First, the default setting of the OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING
>parameter (i.e.
>"0") represents a flaw in the basic costing algorithm used by the CBO.
>Setting the parameter to 90 or so fixes this flaw. For a more detailed
>explanation, please feel free to view my paper "Search for
>Intelligent Life
>in the CBO", available online at "http://www.EvDBT.com/papers.htm".
>
>Changing that alone may cause the CBO to rethink its decision
>to go with the
>derived STAR-join scheme involving a cartesian join, and
>instead choose the
>indexed nested-loops scheme which is the __only__ possible
>choice by the
>RBO. By discounting the cost of index-based access methods,
>the CBO (which
>considers _all_ possible access methods and chooses the one
>with the lowest
>cost) may now choose the index-based plan. Once again, the RBO only
>considered the one plan, which in this case turned into a bit
>of luck for
>the RBO, making it look good.
>
>You can experiment with this parameter change using ALTER
>SESSION, if you
>like. This is one of the _few_ occasions on which changing a parameter
>actually has an impact on performance.
>
>There are some other parameter settings which may impact how
>the CBO costs
>this query. For example, if DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT is
>set higher
>than its default value of 8 or 16, then the CBO will think
>that access plans
>involving FULL table scans are cheaper than they are.
>
>Another possible cause for the CBO's bad decision is it's
>default assumption
>that data values in a column are evenly distributed.
>Gathering stats for
>indexed columns only gathers the number of distinct keys and
>the low/high
>values, by default. Therefore, the CBO has no choice except
>to assume an
>even distribution of data, that each distinct data value is
>used by an equal
>number of rows. Gathering column-level statistics creates
>"histograms" in
>the data dictionary that help the CBO recognize which data values would
>benefit from indexed access and which data values would
>benefit from a FULL
>table scan or another index.
>
>Anyway, I'm getting writer's cramp. Plus, it's a beautiful
>Saturday morning
>and I've been traveling for two straight weeks...
>
>Hope this helps?
>
>-Tim
>
>
>
>on 10/11/03 5:49 AM, Dilip at dilip7772002_at_indiatimes.com wrote:
>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> DB version - 8174. (Oracle Apps 11.5.4).
>>
>> One of the customized report started running very slowly.
>One query was taking
>> more than 3 GB of TEMP tablespace for 'HASH' type segment
>and erroring out
>> after 2 hours for a lack of space in TEMP.
>>
>> Tkprof showed that it is doing Cartesian Sort Merge Join.
>> After running the same report under RBO, it is using Nested
>loops and report
>> is completing in just 5 minutes.
>> The stats were collected last week-end. I couldn't find any
>reason for this
>> CBO's behavior ? Has anybody experienced this before ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ~Dilip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at
http://email.indiatimes.com
>
> Buy The Best In BOOKS at http://www.bestsellers.indiatimes.com
>
> Bid for for Air Tickets @ Re.1 on Air Sahara Flights. Just log on to
> http://airsahara.indiatimes.com and Bid Now !

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Tim Gorman
INET: tim_at_sagelogix.com

Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: John Kanagaraj
INET: john.kanagaraj_at_hds.com

Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).



Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

 Buy The Best In BOOKS at http://www.bestsellers.indiatimes.com

Bid for for Air Tickets @ Re.1 on Air Sahara Flights. Just log on to http://airsahara.indiatimes.com and Bid Now !

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Dilip
  INET: dilip7772002_at_indiatimes.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).