RE: Function-based indexes and trunc()
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:25:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CE70217733273F49A8A162EE074F64D901DE9E7B_at_exmbx05.thus.corp>
It's a numeric thing, not a character thing - I just changed the code to make the date column a number column. And it's a "simple" arithmetic model (though I haven't checked the treatment of stats yet - or looked at the 10053) which says roughly
If you want X >= A
then trunc(X) >= trunc(A) is a reasonable first approximation, and you can check anything that survives that test;
similarly if you want X < B
then trunc(X) <= trunc(B) is a reasonable first approximation -- note the change from < to <= in that case.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
_at_jloracle
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] on behalf of Stéphane Faroult [sfaroult_at_roughsea.com] Sent: 19 April 2014 13:48
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Cc: chris.saxon_at_gmail.com >> Chris Saxon Subject: Re: Function-based indexes and trunc()
Chris,
trunc() ignores bits on the right-hand side of the key (don't take "right-hand side" literally, it's just to help picture it), therefore it doesn't hurt a tree-search for which what matters is the left-hand side. It's certainly a welcome improvement. The left() function in SQL Server use indexes even when the expression wasn't indexed, exactly for the same reason. Working on something else now but it *might* just be, at least it's a possible optimization, that Oracle's equivalent of left(), substr(<col>, 1, ...) would use the index (not sure that in SQL Server substring(<col>, 1, ...) does it), as does LIKE 'blahblah%'.
On the other hand, I am not sure that this kind of improvement will help make understand index usage to young developers :-).
--
Stéphane Faroult
RoughSea Ltd<http://www.roughsea.com>
Konagora<http://www.konagora.com>
RoughSea Channel on Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/roughsealtd>
Author, SQL Success<http://www.amazon.com/SQL-Success-Database-Programming-Proficiency/dp/1909765007/>, The Art of SQL<http://www.amazon.com/Art-SQL-Stephane-Faroult/dp/0596008945/>, Refactoring SQL Applications<http://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-SQL-Applications-Stephane-Faroult/dp/0596514972/>
On 04/19/2014 12:14 PM, Chris Saxon wrote: Hi,
I've just been testing queries and indexes using the trunc() function on dates and noticed something I didn't expect.
I created a simple table on 11.2.0.2 EE, filled it with data and created a function-based index on a date column applying trunc to it:
create table plch_invoices (
invoice_id integer not null primary key,
raised_datetime date not null,
total_cost number(10, 2) not null
);
insert into plch_invoices
select rownum,
sysdate-1825+(rownum/100),
round(dbms_random.value(10, 100), 2)
from dual
connect by level <= 182500;
commit;
exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user, 'plch_invoices');
create index plch_invo_raised_date_i
on plch_invoices (trunc(raised_datetime));
I then ran the following query which doesn't include the trunc() function in the predicates:
select *
from plch_invoices
where raised_datetime >= trunc(sysdate)-1
and raised_datetime < trunc(sysdate);
From my understanding of function-based indexes, this query shouldn't use the index created above because the predicates don't match what's in the index.
When looking at the autotrace output however, I see this:
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1427368697
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 101 | 1717 | 9 (0)| 00:00:01 | |* 1 | FILTER | | | | | | |* 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| PLCH_INVOICES | 101 | 1717 | 9 (0)| 00:00:01 | |* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | PLCH_INVO_RAISED_DATE_I | 821 | | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
1 - filter(TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!)-1<TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!))
2 - filter("RAISED_DATETIME">=TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!)-1 AND "RAISED_DATETIME"<TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!))
3 - access(TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("RAISED_DATETIME"))>=TRUNC(TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!)-1) AND
TRUNC(INTERNAL_FUNCTION("RAISED_DATETIME"))<=TRUNC(TRUNC(SYSDATE_at_!)))
Statistics
0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
19 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
2853 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
442 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
8 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
100 rows processed
Oracle's applied the trunc function to the query for me and used the index!
Has this always worked like this? If so, have I misunderstood something about function-based indexes? If not, when did this change?
I'm curious to understand this, so if you know answers to the above then please share!
Thanks,
Chris
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Sat Apr 19 2014 - 16:25:48 CEST