Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: dba_tables.num_rows is less than dba_indexes.num_rows

RE: dba_tables.num_rows is less than dba_indexes.num_rows

From: Christian Antognini <Christian.Antognini_at_trivadis.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:21:26 +0200
Message-ID: <F2C9CCA71510B442AF71446CAE8AEBAF0AC039@MSXVS04.trivadis.com>


Leng

>Still don't understand part 1 :-( Are you saying that
>num_rows is important on a table, but not on an index?

num_rows on a table is definitively used by the CBO to estimate costs.

Neither Wolfgang nor I know a situation where the num_rows of an index is used by the CBO. If you, or somebody else, know such a situation, please, share it! (Of course we would like to see a reproducible test case...)

>If I manually updated the table's num_rows to be
>bigger than then the indexes' num_rows, and saw
>that the CBO is now favouring an index look up
>rather a full table scan, surely it would prove that
>num_rows is important for both tables and indexes?

No. It only proves that table's num_rows is important.

>So short of doing a compute, how do we give the CBO
>good stats to work with?

As I wrote it depends... and if you need histograms in some situation even a compute is not enough!

HTH,
Chris

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 03:23:33 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US