oracle12178错误,Oracle学习笔记_20080522:Index FS vs Index FFS
Index Full Scan vs Index Fast Full Scan
index full scan和index fast full
scan是指同樣的東西嗎？答案是no。兩者雖然從字面上看起來差不多，但是實現的機制完全不同。我們一起來看看兩者的區別在哪里?
首先來看一下IFS,FFS能用在哪里：在一句sql中，如果我們想搜索的列都包含在索引里面的話，那么index
full scan 和 index fast full scan 都可以被采用代替full
table scan。比如以下語句：
SQL> CREATE TABLE TEST AS SELECT * FROM
dba_objects WHERE 0=1;
SQL> CREATE INDEX ind_test_id ON
TEST(object_id);
SQL> INSERT INTO TEST
SELECT?*
FROM dba_objects
WHERE object_id IS NOT NULL AND object_id >
10000
ORDER BY object_id DESC;
17837 rows created.
SQL> analyze table test compute statistics for
table for all columns for all indexes;
Table analyzed.
SQL> set autotrace trace;
SQL> select object_id from test;
17837 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0?SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=68 Card=17837
Bytes=71348)
1?0?TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'TEST'
(Cost=68 Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
這時候 Oracle會選擇全表掃描，因為 object_id
列默認是可以為null的，來修改成 not null:
SQL>alter table test modify(object_id not
null);
SQL> select object_id from test;
17837 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0?SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=11 Card=17837
Bytes=71348)
1?0?INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF
'IND_TEST_ID' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=11 Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
當然我們也可以使用index full scan:
SQL> select object_id from test;
17837 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0?SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=41 Card=17837
Bytes=71348)
1?0?INDEX (FULL SCAN) OF
'IND_TEST_ID' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=101 Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
我們看到了兩者都可以在這種情況下使用，那么他們有什么區別呢？有個地方可以看出兩者的區別，來看一下兩者的輸出結果，為了讓大家看清楚一點，我們只取10行。
INDEX FAST FULL SCAN
SQL> select object_id from test where
rownum<11;
OBJECT_ID
----------
66266
66267
66268
66269
66270
66271
66272
66273
66274
66275
10 rows selected.
INDEX FULL SCAN
SQL> select object_id from test?where rownum<11;
OBJECT_ID
----------
10616
12177
12178
12179
12301
13495
13536
13539
13923
16503
10 rows selected.
可以看到兩者的結果完全不一樣，這是為什么呢？這是因為當進行index
full scan的時候 oracle定位到索引的root
block，然后到branch
block(如果有的話)，再定位到第一個leaf block,
然后根據leaf
block的雙向鏈表順序讀取。它所讀取的塊都是有順序的，也是經過排序的。
而index fast full
scan則不同，它是從段頭開始，讀取包含位圖塊，root
block,所有的branch block, leaf
block，讀取的順序完全有物理存儲位置決定，并采取多塊讀，沒次讀取db_file_multiblock_read_count個塊。
這就是為什么兩者的結果區別如此之大的原因，我們再仔細跟蹤一下這兩條語句。首先來看一下索引的結構
SQL> select object_id from dba_objects where
object_name='IND_TEST_ID';
OBJECT_ID
----------
70591
索引的object_id為70591，使用tree
dump可以看到索引樹的結構
SQL> ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS 'immediate trace name
TREEDUMP level 70591';
----- begin tree dump
branch: 0x6809b8d 109091725 (0: nrow: 100, level: 1)
leaf: 0x6809b96 109091734 (-1:
nrow: 294 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ec1 113278657 (0:
nrow: 262 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ebd 113278653 (1:
nrow: 518 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07eb1 113278641 (2:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ead 113278637 (3:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea9 113278633 (4:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea5 113278629 (5:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea1 113278625 (6:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07e9d 113278621 (7:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07e99 113278617 (8:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07e95 113278613 (9:
nrow: 532 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07e91 113278609 (10:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07e8d 113278605 (11:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ec8 113278664 (12:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ec4 113278660 (13:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ec0 113278656 (14:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ebc 113278652 (15:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6809bb2 109091762 (16:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07eb8 113278648 (17:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07eb4 113278644 (18:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07eb0 113278640 (19:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07eac 113278636 (20:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6809bae 109091758 (21:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea8 113278632 (22:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea4 113278628 (23:
nrow: 524 rrow: 0)
leaf: 0x6c07ea0 113278624 (24:
nrow: 105 rrow: 105)
leaf: 0x6c07e9c 113278620 (25:
nrow: 129 rrow: 129)
leaf: 0x6c07eb9 113278649 (26:
nrow: 123 rrow: 123)
leaf: 0x6809baa 109091754 (27:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6c07e98 113278616 (28:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6c07e94 113278612 (29:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809ba6 109091750 (30:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bce 109091790 (31:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bca 109091786 (32:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c05 109091845 (33:
nrow: 248 rrow: 248)
leaf: 0x6809c01 109091841 (34:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bfd 109091837 (35:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf9 109091833 (36:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf5 109091829 (37:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf1 109091825 (38:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bed 109091821 (39:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be9 109091817 (40:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be5 109091813 (41:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be1 109091809 (42:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bdd 109091805 (43:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd9 109091801 (44:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd5 109091797 (45:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd1 109091793 (46:
nrow: 248 rrow: 248)
leaf: 0x6809bcd 109091789 (47:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bc9 109091785 (48:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c08 109091848 (49:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c04 109091844 (50:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c00 109091840 (51:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bfc 109091836 (52:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf8 109091832 (53:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf4 109091828 (54:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf0 109091824 (55:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bec 109091820 (56:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be8 109091816 (57:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be4 109091812 (58:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be0 109091808 (59:
nrow: 248 rrow: 248)
leaf: 0x6809bdc 109091804 (60:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd8 109091800 (61:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd4 109091796 (62:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd0 109091792 (63:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bcc 109091788 (64:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c07 109091847 (65:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c03 109091843 (66:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bff 109091839 (67:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bfb 109091835 (68:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf7 109091831 (69:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf3 109091827 (70:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bef 109091823 (71:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809beb 109091819 (72:
nrow: 248 rrow: 248)
leaf: 0x6809be7 109091815 (73:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be3 109091811 (74:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bdf 109091807 (75:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bdb 109091803 (76:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd7 109091799 (77:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd3 109091795 (78:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bcf 109091791 (79:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bcb 109091787 (80:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c06 109091846 (81:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809c02 109091842 (82:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bfe 109091838 (83:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bfa 109091834 (84:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809ba2 109091746 (85:
nrow: 129 rrow: 129)
leaf: 0x6c07eb5 113278645 (86:
nrow: 123 rrow: 123)
leaf: 0x6809bf6 109091830 (87:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bf2 109091826 (88:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bee 109091822 (89:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bea 109091818 (90:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809b9e 109091742 (91:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be6 109091814 (92:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809be2 109091810 (93:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bde 109091806 (94:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bda 109091802 (95:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809b9a 109091738 (96:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd6 109091798 (97:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
leaf: 0x6809bd2 109091794 (98:
nrow: 246 rrow: 246)
----- end tree dump
index full scan讀取的是0x6c07ea0 這個塊，而index fast
full scan讀取的是
0x6809b9a這個塊也就是包含數據的物理存儲位置最前的塊。分別看一下這兩個塊的內容
0x6c07ea0 =十進制的113278624
0x6809b9a =十進制的109091738
SQL> select
dbms_utility.data_block_address_file(113278624)
"file",dbms_utility.data_block_address_block(113278624)
"block"?from dual;
file?block
---------- ----------
27?32416
SQL> select
dbms_utility.data_block_address_file(109091738)
"file",dbms_utility.data_block_address_block(109091738)"block"?from dual;
file?block
---------- ----------
26?39834
SQL> alter system dump datafile 27 block 32416;
SQL> alter system dump datafile 26 block
39834;
block 32416的前10行
row#0[6564] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 07 11
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 2b
row#1[6578] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 16 4e
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 2a
row#2[6592] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 16 4f
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 29
row#3[6606] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 16 50
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 28
row#4[6620] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 18 02
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 27
row#5[6634] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 23 60
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 26
row#6[6648] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 24 25
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 25
row#7[6662] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 24 28
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 24
row#8[6676] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 28 18
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 23
row#9[6690] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 42 04
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 22
block 39834的前10行
row#0[4591] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 43
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 36
row#1[4605] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 44
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 35
row#2[4619] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 45
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 34
row#3[4633] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 46
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 33
row#4[4647] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 47
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 32
row#5[4661] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 48
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 31
row#6[4675] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 49
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 30
row#7[4689] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 4a
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 2f
row#8[4703] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 4b
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 2e
row#9[4717] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 4c
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 2d
對照一下前面的結果集
block
32416的第一行為10616,數據內的存儲格式應該為
SQL> select dump(10616,16) from dual;
DUMP(10616,16)
----------------------
Typ=2 Len=4: c3,2,7,11
確實等于dump block所看到的
row#0[6564] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 02 07 11
col 1; len 6; (6):?07 00 7c 20 00 2b
再看block 39834的第1行
SQL> select dump(66266,16) from dual;
DUMP(66266,16)
-----------------------
Typ=2 Len=4: c3,7,3f,43
跟dump 的結果也一樣
row#0[4591] flag: -----, lock: 2
col 0; len 4; (4):?c3 07 3f 43
col 1; len 6; (6):?02 81 71 f6 00 36
這就證明了上面所說的index full scan和index fast full
scan的不同。
我們也可以用10046事件去跟蹤兩者走的路徑。
SQL> ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS 'immediate trace name
flush_cache';
(清空buffer cache,以便觀看'db file sequential read','db
file scattered read'事件)。
SQL> alter session set events'10046 trace name
context forever,level 12';
Session altered.
SQL> select object_id from test where
rownum<11;
OBJECT_ID
----------
66266
66267
66268
66269
66270
66271
66272
66273
66274
66275
10 rows selected.
SQL>?alter session set
events'10046 trace name context off';
Session altered.
[oracle@csdbc udump]$ grep read cs-dbc_ora_15596.trc
Redo thread mounted by this instance: 1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 33 p1=26 p2=39820
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 21 p1=26 p2=39817
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 17 p1=26 p2=39819
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file parallel read' ela= 53 p1=2 p2=2 p3=2
WAIT #1: nam='db file scattered read' ela= 466 p1=26 p2=39821
p3=16
最前面的'db file sequential
read'是由于讀段頭等操作，我們來關注'db file
scattered read'事件，因為index fast full
scan是采用多塊讀，從39821開始讀取db_file_multiblock_read_count個塊(本例里設置為16)。我們關心的39834塊正位于其中。
再來看index full scan的10046 trace
SQL> ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS 'immediate trace name
flush_cache';
(清空buffer cache,以便觀看'db file sequential read','db
file scattered read'事件)。
SQL> alter session set events'10046 trace name
context forever,level 12';
Session altered.
SQL>
OBJECT_ID
----------
10616
12177
12178
12179
12301
13495
13536
13539
13923
16503
10 rows selected.
SQL>?alter session set
events'10046 trace name context off';
Session altered.
[oracle@csdbc udump]$ grep read cs-dbc_ora_15609.trc
Redo thread mounted by this instance: 1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 49 p1=26 p2=39821
p3=1
root block,正是先前索引 dump里面的 0x6809b8d
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 32 p1=26 p2=39830
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 40 p1=27 p2=32449
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 35 p1=27 p2=32445
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 28 p1=27 p2=32433
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 19 p1=27 p2=32429
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 34 p1=27 p2=32425
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 32 p1=27 p2=32421
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 33 p1=27 p2=32417
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 29 p1=27 p2=32413
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 37 p1=27 p2=32409
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 32 p1=27 p2=32405
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 35 p1=27 p2=32401
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 34 p1=27 p2=32397
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 31 p1=27 p2=32456
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 29 p1=27 p2=32452
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 31 p1=27 p2=32448
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 30 p1=27 p2=32444
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 38 p1=26 p2=39858
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 31 p1=27 p2=32440
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 32 p1=27 p2=32436
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 35 p1=27 p2=32432
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 31 p1=27 p2=32428
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 29 p1=26 p2=39854
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 36 p1=27 p2=32424
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 32 p1=27 p2=32420
p3=1
WAIT #1: nam='db file sequential read' ela= 36 p1=27 p2=32416
p3=1
index full
scan走的路徑正是文章開始所提到的定位到root
block，然后根據leaf
block鏈表一路讀取塊?？吹竭@里大家應該比較了解index
full scan 和index fast full scan的區別了，最后補充一下
index full scan 和 index fast full scan
在排序上的不同。
SQL> set autotrace trace;
SQL> select object_id from test order by
object_id;
17837 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0?SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=41 Card=17837
Bytes=71348)
1?0?INDEX (FULL SCAN) OF
'IND_TEST_ID' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=101 Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
由于有排序所以oracle自動選擇了index full
scan避免了排序。那么強制用index fast full scan呢？
SQL> selectobject_id from test order by
object_id;
17837 rows selected.
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
0?SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=59 Card=17837
Bytes=71348)
1?0?SORT (ORDER BY) (Cost=59
Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
2?1?INDEX (FAST FULL SCAN) OF 'IND_TEST_ID' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=11
Card=17837 Bytes=71348)
index fast full scan會多一步sort order
by，相信仔細看過這篇文章的人能知道其中結果了吧，還不知道的人請在文章中自己找答案吧。
總結
以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的oracle12178错误,Oracle学习笔记_20080522:Index FS vs Index FFS的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。
- 上一篇： queue double java_一文
- 下一篇： 用flash做古诗动画_带孩子用两张A4