How the CBO works

Jonathan Lewis www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Who am I
Independent Consultant.
18+ years experience. Design, Strategy, Reviews, Briefings, Seminars, Tutorials, Trouble-shooting www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003 NoCOUG 2003

Highlights
A Puzzle Basic Costs Correcting Oracle's assumptions Oracle 9 learns (Join Mechanics - time permitting) Q and A
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003 NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle (v8.1 - 4K)

create table t1 as select trunc((rownum-1)/15) trunc((rownum-1)/15) rpad('x',100) from all_objects where rownum <= create table t2 as select mod(rownum,200) mod(rownum,200) rpad('x',100) from all_objects where rownum <=
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

n1, n2, v1 3000;

n1, n2, v1 3000;

NoCOUG 2003

We construct two sets of data with identical content, although we do use two different mathematical methods to get 15 rows each for 200 different values.

A puzzle - indexed
create index t_i1 on t1(n1);
create index t_i2 on t2(n1); analyze table t1 compute statistics; analyze table t2 compute statistics;

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

We create indexes and generate statistics. In newer versions, we should use the dbms_stats package, not analyze. (Note- compute is often over-kill)

NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle - checking data

USER_TABLES
TABLE_NAME BLOCKS NUM_ROWS AVG_ROW_LEN ----------- ------ ---------- ----------T1 96 3000 111 T2 96 3000 111

USER_TAB_COLUMNS
TAB --T1 T2 COL ---N1 N1 LOW_VALUE --------80 80 HIGH_VALUE NUM_DISTINCT ---------- -----------C20264 200 C20264 200

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

We can check that statistics like number of rows, column values and column counts are identical. The data contents is identical across the two tables.

NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle - the problem

select * from t1 where n1 = 45;
SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=2 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T1' (Cost=2 Card=15) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I1' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=15)

select * from t2 where n1 = 45;

SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=15 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T2' (Cost=15 Card=15)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

We now run exactly the same query against the two sets of data - with autotrace switched on - and find that the execution plans are different.

NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle - force it
select /*+ index(t2) */ * from t2 where n1 = 45;
SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=16 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T2' (Cost=16 Card=15) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=15)

select * from t2 where n1 = 45;

SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=15 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T2' (Cost=15 Card=15)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Why has Oracle ignored the index on T2 ? Put in the hint(s) to make it happen, and see if we get any clues. The cost of a tablescan is cheaper !

NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle - the detail

select table_name num_rows avg_leaf_blocks_per_key avg_data_blocks_per_key clustering_factor from user_indexes; TAB ---T1 T2 NUM_ROWS -------3000 3000 L_BLOCKS -------1 1 tab, num_rows, l_blocks, d_blocks, cl_fac

D_BLOCKS -------1 15

CL_FAC -----96 3000

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Why is the tablescan cheaper ? We look at the data scattering, rather than the data content, and find the answer. The clustering is different.

NoCOUG 2003

A puzzle - the difference

0, 0, 0, 0 . 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6.. 10, 10, 10, ..11, 11, .. .. 45,45,45,45,45,.. 46,46,.. .. 131, 131, 131, .. ..199,199,199,199 0, 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 103, 104, 105, .. 198, 199, 0, 1, 2, .. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, .. .. .. .. 44, 45, 46, . ..196,197,198,199

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The data on the left shows the effect of the trunc() function, the data on the right shows the mod() effect. The statistics describe the data perfectly.

NoCOUG 2003

The arithmetic
T2 by index one index block, 15 data blocks = 16 T2 by scan 96 blocks / 8 (multiblock read) = 12
(this is a first approximation)

T1 by index one index block, one data block = 2

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Silly assumption 1: Every logical request turns into a physical read. Silly assumption 2: A multiblock read is just as fast as a single block read.

NoCOUG 2003

Multiblock Read
Actual 4 8 16 32 64 128 Adjusted 4.175 6.589 10.398 16.409 25.895 40.865

Adjusted

Actual

96 / 6.589 = 14.57
(and add 1 in 9.2)
The cost of a tablescan uses an 'adjusted' db_file_multiblock_read_count. Under 'traditional' costing the v9 cost is always one more than the v8 cost..

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Multiblock Read Count

select * from t2 where n1 = 45; -- tablescan cost was 15 alter session set DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT = 4;
SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=16 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T2' (Cost=16 Card=15) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=15)

(tablescan cost would be 23) alter session set DB_FILE_MULTIBLOCK_READ_COUNT = 16;

SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=10 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T2' (Cost=10 Card=15)
We can affect access paths by changing the db_file_multiblock_read_count. But this is a bit of a drastic change on a production system.

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Single-block adjustment
select * from t2 where n1 = 45; -- index access cost was 16 alter session set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ = 50;
SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=8 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T2' (Cost=8 Card=15) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=15)

alter session set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ = 25;

SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=4 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T2' (Cost=4 Card=15) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=15)
`

Under Oracle 9 the numbers are slightly different.

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

We can fix one of Oracle's silly assumptions - let it know that single block reads are cheaper (faster) than multiblock reads - by setting a percentage cost

NoCOUG 2003

Single-block adjustment
select from where event, average_wait v$system_event -- v$session_event event like 'db file s%read'; AVERAGE_WAIT 1.05 3.72

EVENT db file sequential read db file scattered read

sequential read time / scattered read time = 1.05/3.72 = 0.28226 alter session set optimizer_index_cost_adj = 28; init.ora or login trigger Tim Gorman (www.evdbt.com) - The search for intelligent life in the CBO. *** but see Garry Robinson: http://www.oracleadvice.com/Tips/optind.htm
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The really nice thing about this is that we can set a genuine and realistic cost factor by checking recent, or localised, history. (snapshot v$session_event)

NoCOUG 2003

Join cost-adjustment
select from where and t2.n1, t1.n2 t2,t1 t2.n2 = 45 t2.n1 = t1.n1;

SELECT STATEMENT (Cost=31 Card=225) HASH JOIN (Cost=31 Card=25)

31 = 15 + 15 + a bit

TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF T2 (Cost=15 Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF T1 (Cost=15 Card=3000)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

We can even see the effect of this price fixing in joins. Unhinted, or unfixed, the optimizer chooses a hash join as the cheapest way to our two tables.

NoCOUG 2003

Hash Join (1)

Hashed

First (smaller) data set

Second (larger) data set

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The first table is hashed in memory, the second table is used to probe the hash (build) table for matches. In simple cases the cost is easy to calculate.

NoCOUG 2003

Force a nested loop

select /*+ ordered use_nl(t1) index(t1) */ t2.n1, t1.n2 from t2,t1 wheret2.n2 = 45 and t2.n1 = t1.n1;
NESTED LOOPS (Cost=45 Card=225) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF T2 (Cost=15, Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY ROWID) OF T1(Cost=2,Card=3000) INDEX(RANGE SCAN) OF T_I1(NON-UNIQUE)(Cost=1)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

As usual, to investigate why a plan is going wrong, we hint it to make it do what we want - and then look for clues in the resulting cost lines.

NoCOUG 2003

Forced NL cost
alter session set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ = 100; -- def NESTED LOOPS (Cost=45 Card=225) TABLE ACCESS(FULL) OF T2 (Cost=15, Card=15) TABLE ACCESS(BY ROWID) OF T1(Cost=2, Card=3000) INDEX(RANGE SCAN) OF T_I1(NON-UNIQUE)(Cost=1)
T2 cost = 15 Estimated rows = 15

For each row from T2 we access T1 by complete key value T1 Cost per access = 2 Cost for 15 accesses = 15 x 2 = 30 Total cost of query = cost of T2 + total cost of T1 = 15 + 30 = 45
The nested loop algorithm is: for each row in the outer table, use the value in that row to access the inner table - hence the simple formula.

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Nested Loop
T1

T2

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The basic arithmetic of the nested loop join is visible in the picture. We do three indexed access into T2, but need the three driving rows from T1 first.

NoCOUG 2003

Nested Loops - recosted

alter session set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_COST_ADJ = 50; NESTED LOOPS (Cost=30 Card=225) TABLE ACCESS(FULL) OF T2 (Cost=15, Card=15) TABLE ACCESS(BY ROWID) OF T1(Cost=1, Card=3000) INDEX(RANGE SCAN) OF T_I1(NON-UNIQUE)(Cost=1)
T2 cost = 15 Estimated rows = 15

For each row from T2 we access T1 by complete key value T1 Cost per access = 2 x 50% = 1 Cost for 15 accesses = 15 x 1 = 15 Total cost of query = cost of T2 + total cost of T1 = 15 + 15 = 30
What happens to the cost when we tell Oracle that single block reads cost half as much as it would otherwise charge ?

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Index Caching (NL only)

Basic nested loop cost (hinted)
NESTED LOOPS (Cost=45 Card=225) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T2' (Cost=15, Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T1' (Cost=2, Card=3000) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I1' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1)

alter session set OPTIMIZER_INDEX_CACHING = 100;

NESTED LOOPS (Cost=30 Card=225) TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'T2' (Cost=15, Card=15) TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T1' (Cost=1, Card=3000) INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_I1' (NON-UNIQUE)
We can improve silly assumption 2 (every logical I/O is also a physical I/O). Index blocks are often cached. So tell the optimizer how good our cache is.

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Simplifications
What about the blevel ? What about multi-column indexes ? What about unbounded ranges ? What about unique indexes ? What about bitmap indexes ?

This was a visually helpful introduction

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

This walk-through is intended to give you a gut-feeling of how the optimizer. works. But there are plenty of special cases, and bits of funny arithmetic.

NoCOUG 2003

An improved approximation:
blevel + selectivity * leaf_blocks + selectivity * clustering_factor
(see Wolfgang Breitling's paper to IOUG-A 2002)

For equality on all index columns:

avg_leaf_blocks_per_key @ sel * leaf_blocks avg_data_blocks_per_key @ sel * clustering_factor
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

For multi column indexes, or when using a range scan, we need more precise arithmetic - but even our example was a special case of the general formula

NoCOUG 2003

Adjusted cost:
(
(blevel + selectivity * leaf_blocks) * (1 - optimizer_index_caching/100) + selectivity * clustering_factor ) * optimizer_index_cost_adj / 100
Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Index bit

Table bit

The formula that Wolfgang Breitling proposed has to be adjusted to handle the two 'fudge factor' parameters. This formula seems to be about right.

NoCOUG 2003

System Statistics (v9)

dbms_stats.gather_system_stats('start') dbms_stats.gather_system_stats('stop')
SNAME SYSSTATS_MAIN SYSSTATS_MAIN SYSSTATS_MAIN SYSSTATS_MAIN PNAME CPUSPEED SREADTIM MREADTIM MBRC PVAL1 357 MHz 7.179 ms Single block is 18.559 ms cheaper than multi. Used in t/s cost. 5

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

But in version 9 you need the 'fudge factors' less (You could still use them as indicators of caching) - instead, you let Oracle learn about your hardware

NoCOUG 2003

Conclusions
Understand your data Data distribution is important Think about your parameters Help Oracle with the truth Use system statistics in v9

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Sort / Merge
select count(t1.v1) count(t2.v2) from big1 t1, big2 where t2.n2 = t1.n1; ct_v1, ct_v2 t2

SELECT STATEMENT (choose) Cost (963) SORT (aggregate) MERGE JOIN Cost (963 = 174 + 789) SORT (join) Cost (174) TABLE ACCESS (analyzed) T1 (full) SORT (join) Cost (789) TABLE ACCESS (analyzed) T2 (full)

Cost (23) Cost (115)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The cost of a sort-merge equi-join is typically the cost of acquiring each of the two data sets, plus the cost of making sure the two data sets are sorted.

NoCOUG 2003

Sort Merge
Table 1 Table 2

Merge Sort

Merge Sort

To next step e.g. order by

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Once the two sets are in order, they can be shuffled together. The shuffling can be quick - the sorting may be the most expensive bit.

NoCOUG 2003

In-memory sort
PGA UGA (will be in SGA for Shared Servers (MTS)) sort_area_retained_size sort_area_retained_size

Sort_area_size - sort_area_retained_size

To disc

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

In a merge join, even if the first sort completes in memory, it will still dump the excess over sort_area_retained_size to disc. (and so will the second sort)

NoCOUG 2003

Big Sorts

Sort

Sort

Sort

Merge

Merge

Merge

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

A one-pass sort. The data has been read, sorted, and dumped to disc in chunks, then re-read once to be merged into order, and dumped again.

NoCOUG 2003

Huge Sorts
Sort

Merge 1

Merge 2

Merge 3

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

Multipass sort. After sorting the data in chunks, Oracle was unable to re-read the top of every chunk simultaneously, so we have multiple merge passes.

NoCOUG 2003

Hash Join (1)

Hashed

First (smaller) data set

Second (larger) data set

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

The first table is hashed in memory, the second table is used to probe the hash (build) table for matches. In simple cases the cost is easy to calculate.

NoCOUG 2003

Hash Join (2)

Bit mapped

Hashed and partitioned Dump to disc

Dump to disc

Small data set

Big data set

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

If the smaller data set cannot be hashed in memory, it partitioned, mapped, and partly dumped to disc. The larger data set is partitioned in the same way

NoCOUG 2003

Hash Join (3)

Bit mapped

Hashed and partitioned Dump to disc

Dump to disc

Small data set

Big data set

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

And if things go really wrong (bad statistics) Oracle uses partitions which are too large - and the probe (secondary) partitions are re-read many times.

NoCOUG 2003

Version 9 approach
pga_aggregate_target = 500M worksize_area_policy = auto v$sysstat
Sorts, hashes, bitmap creates (v.9) workarea executions - optimal The job completed in memory - perfect. workarea executions - onepass The job required a dump to disk and single re-read. workarea executions - multipass Data was dumped to disc and re-read more than once.
Under Oracle 9, you should be setting workarea_size_policy to true, and use the pga_aggregate_target to something big - the limit per user is 5%

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003

Conclusions 2
Sort joins have catastrophe points Hash joins have catastrophe points Work to avoid multi-pass pga_aggregate_target helps (v9)

Jonathan Lewis 2001 - 2003

NoCOUG 2003