Written by Even though in general parallel full table scans performs direct reads, some exceptions exist. The aim of this post is to show such an exception.
For test purposes I build in my own schema a copy of the SH.SALES table (the one distributed by Oracle with the demo schemas…). On that table I build an index on the TIME_ID column and, at the same time, I trace the execution. The statements I use are the following.
execute dbms_monitor.session_trace_enable CREATE INDEX sales_time_id ON sales (time_id) PARALLEL 2 ONLINE; execute dbms_monitor.session_trace_disable
Since the index is built in parallel (DOP=2), 5 processes are used to run the statement: the query coordinator, 2 slaves for reading the table, and 2 slaves for building the index. Based on the data provided by extended SQL trace let’s have a look to some information about the execution.
- Execution plan (without runtime statistics and query optimizer estimations): both the build of the index and the full table scan are performed in parallel.
Operation
----------------------------------------
PX COORDINATOR
PX SEND QC (ORDER) :TQ10001
INDEX BUILD NON UNIQUE SALES_TIME_ID
SORT CREATE INDEX
PX RECEIVE
PX SEND RANGE :TQ10000
PX BLOCK ITERATOR
TABLE ACCESS FULL SALES
- Resource usage profile of the query coordinator: no real work is performed, it’s just coordination work…
Total Number of Duration per Component Duration [s] % Events Events [s] ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- ------------ ---------------- PX Deq: Execute Reply 1.928 79.044 44 0.044 recursive statements 0.427 17.487 n/a n/a CPU 0.024 0.984 n/a n/a os thread startup 0.017 0.690 1 0.017 log file sync 0.014 0.569 2 0.007 PX Deq: Parse Reply 0.014 0.568 4 0.003 enq: CR - block range reuse ckpt 0.005 0.202 2 0.002 PX Deq: Join ACK 0.004 0.145 5 0.001 SQL*Net message from client 0.002 0.098 1 0.002 PX qref latch 0.002 0.075 1 0.002 PX Deq: Table Q qref 0.001 0.058 1 0.001 enq: RO - fast object reuse 0.001 0.028 1 0.001 PX Deq: Signal ACK EXT 0.001 0.025 6 0.000 PX Deq: Slave Session Stats 0.000 0.014 3 0.000 reliable message 0.000 0.006 2 0.000 latch: call allocation 0.000 0.004 1 0.000 db file sequential read 0.000 0.004 6 0.000 rdbms ipc reply 0.000 0.002 2 0.000 SQL*Net message to client 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- Total 2.439 100.000
- Resource usage profile of one of the slaves building the index: direct writes are used to store the index.
Total Number of Duration per Component Duration [s] % Events Events [s] ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- ------------ ---------------- direct path write 0.982 49.671 376 0.003 CPU 0.781 39.508 n/a n/a PX Deq: Table Q Normal 0.177 8.957 130 0.001 PX Deq: Execution Msg 0.012 0.595 4 0.003 cursor: pin S wait on X 0.011 0.535 1 0.011 recursive statements 0.008 0.420 n/a n/a log file sync 0.005 0.247 3 0.002 Disk file operations I/O 0.001 0.030 1 0.001 PX Deq: Slave Session Stats 0.000 0.021 1 0.000 reliable message 0.000 0.011 1 0.000 rdbms ipc reply 0.000 0.006 2 0.000 ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- Total 1.977 100.000
- Resource usage profile of one of the slaves scanning the table: instead of performing direct reads, “regular” buffered reads are performed (notice the db file scattered read event).
Total Number of Duration per Component Duration [s] % Events Events [s] ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- ------------ ---------------- PX Deq: Execution Msg 1.571 80.295 23 0.068 CPU 0.311 15.889 n/a n/a PX Deq Credit: need buffer 0.055 2.794 432 0.000 db file scattered read 0.016 0.835 55 0.000 PX Deq: Table Q Get Keys 0.002 0.109 1 0.002 Disk file operations I/O 0.001 0.032 1 0.001 PX Deq Credit: send blkd 0.001 0.028 1 0.001 PX Deq: Slave Session Stats 0.000 0.010 1 0.000 db file sequential read 0.000 0.005 4 0.000 PX qref latch 0.000 0.002 1 0.000 latch: cache buffers chains 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- Total 1.957 100.000
As pointed out by the last resource usage profile no direct reads are performed. Why? In this case it is because the ONLINE option was specified. By the way, I do not know why there is such a limitation… Anway, without this option, for one of the slaves reading the table the following resource usage profile is used (notice the direct path read event). I do not show the other resource usage profiles and the execution plan because they do not change.
Total Number of Duration per Component Duration [s] % Events Events [s] ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- ------------ ---------------- PX Deq: Execution Msg 1.499 80.358 22 0.068 CPU 0.278 14.897 n/a n/a PX Deq Credit: need buffer 0.071 3.790 504 0.000 direct path read 0.012 0.630 52 0.000 PX Deq Credit: send blkd 0.003 0.176 2 0.002 PX Deq: Table Q Get Keys 0.001 0.047 2 0.000 PX Deq: Slave Session Stats 0.001 0.041 1 0.001 Disk file operations I/O 0.001 0.033 1 0.001 library cache: mutex X 0.000 0.025 1 0.000 db file sequential read 0.000 0.002 2 0.000 asynch descriptor resize 0.000 0.001 18 0.000 ----------------------------------- ---------------- ------- Total 1.866 100.000
In summary, do not expect to always see direct reads when a parallel full table scan is performed.
> In this case it is because the ONLINE option was specified. By the way, I do not know why there is such a limitation…
Maybe because Oracle needs a consistent view of the table at the time the “create index” started? Presumably, there will be updates to the table while the index is being built – these will be gathered and applied at the end, but the application process needs to start with the index “as of” when the gathering started.
Just a guess.
Greetings,
Flado
Hi Flado
Even when direct reads are performed, read consistency must be guaranteed. To do so an object checkpoint is issued before performing the direct reads. As a result the necessary data is stored on disk. Therefore, I do not see why that should be different for an online index creation. IMO to read the data that has been updated since the CREATE INDEX started, another read, based on another SCN, is required.
Thank you for sharing your opinion!
Cheers,
Chris
Hi Chris! Thanks for answering :-)
Another full scan (based on another SCN) seems too big a price to pay for the ONLINE part of an index rebuild. And what about the changes made while this second scan runs? No, I think the apply process must be very quick, so that the table may remain locked while it runs.
I think that the fast object checkpoint trick works for SELECTs which must ignore the changes made while they run; in contrast, an index rebuild must incorporate those changes.
Cheers,
Flado
You are right that the initial consistent view may be aquired in the same manner as for parallel SELECT, though. Hmmm… a puzzle…
Cheers,
Flado
Hi Flado
> Another full scan (based on another SCN) seems too big a price
> to pay for the ONLINE part of an index rebuild.
I wrote “another read” not “another full scan”. The only way to efficiently perform an online index creation is to know which rows are modified after the initial full scan is started. I.e. they have to use some kind of log to keep the rowids of those rows… and, during the last phase of the build, they access them directly.
Cheers,
Chris
Christian
Can we consider that a LIO on a block in PGA (resulted of a Direct Path Read) is less resource consumer than other readed from Buffer Cache?
Thanks in advance, your block is fantastic.
John
Hi John
Since it doesn’t have to go through all the serialization steps…. yes, it can be considered “cheaper”.
Cheers,
Chris
Sorry, I meant “your blog is fantastic” :-)
John