大家知道数据表中的数据都是无序的存在库中，当我们在对数据进行检索的时候，查找起来很是耗费资源，于是我们就需要为表创建索引，索引的作用就是把表中的数据按照一定的顺序排列保存起来，于是就出现了一个问题，有的表中的数据和索引想要排列的顺序很是相近，而另一些表中的数据和索引想要排列的顺序相距甚远，聚簇因子的作用就是用来标示这个的，聚簇因子越小，相似度越高，聚簇因子越大，相似度越低。
1、列顺序
当计算有效索引选择率时，在基于区间的谓词之后的所有基于列的谓词都将被忽略——但是计算有效表选择率的时候还会使用他们——这样就导致oracle计算得出该索引的成本高得离谱。这就建议我们重新调整某些索引的结构，将对应于区间谓词的列调整到索引定义的末尾。这种调整可能会改变clustering_factor的值。
SQL> create table t1
2 pctfree 90
3 pctused 10
4 as
5 select
6 trunc((rownum-1)/ 100) clustered,
7 mod(rownum - 1, 100) scattered,
8 lpad(rownum,10) small_vc
9 from
10 all_objects
11 where
12 rownum <= 10000
13 ;
表已创建。
SQL> create index t1_i1_good on t1(clustered, scattered);
索引已创建。
SQL> create index t1_i2_bad on t1(scattered, clustered);
索引已创建。
SQL> begin
2 dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
3 user,
4 't1',
5 cascade => true,
6 estimate_percent => null,
7 method_opt => 'for all columns size 1'
8 );
9 end;
10 /
PL/SQL 过程已成功完成。
SQL> select i.index_name,i.blevel,i.leaf_blocks,i.clustering_factor from user_indexes i;
INDEX_NAME BLEVEL LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR
------------------------------ ---------- ----------- -----------------
T1_I1_GOOD 1 24 278
T1_I2_BAD 1 24 10000
SQL> set autotrace trace exp;
SQL> select count(small_vc)
2 from t1
3 where scattered = 50
4 and clustered between 1 and 5;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2833503776
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 17 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 17 | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 6 | 102 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I1_GOOD | 6 | | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - access("CLUSTERED">=1 AND "SCATTERED"=50 AND "CLUSTERED"<=5)
filter("SCATTERED"=50)
SQL> select
2 /*+ index(t1 t1_i2_bad) */
3 count(small_vc)
4 from t1
5 where scattered = 50
6 and clustered between 1 and 5;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2223336776
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 17 | 9 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 17 | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 6 | 102 | 9 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I2_BAD | 6 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - access("SCATTERED"=50 AND "CLUSTERED">=1 AND "CLUSTERED"<=5)在第一个执行计划中，尽管存在一个索引（T1_I2_BAD）能很好的满足以上查询的要求，其第一列是scattered（使用相等谓词），第二列是clustered（使用基于区间的谓词），优化器还是选择了t1_i1_good索引。
在第二个执行计划中，添加了一个提示来强制oracle使用我们认为更能满足查询要求的那个索引（t1_i2_bad），但是由此带来的成本将是优化器的默认选择的成本的两倍还要多（由4变为9）。
这就突出了优化器利用clustering_factor来计算索引访问路劲成本的缺陷。不管这个示例中用的是哪一个索引，访问表的数目是完全相同的——但是访问顺序会存在差异，这也足以导致优化器成本的计算结果产生巨大的差异。
SQL> select s.table_name,
2 s.column_name,
3 s.num_distinct,
4 s.density,
5 s.num_nulls,
6 s.avg_col_len
7 from user_tab_col_statistics s
8 where table_name = 'T1';
TABLE_NAME COLUMN_NAME NUM_DISTINCT DENSITY NUM_NULLS AVG_COL_LEN
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- -----------
T1 CLUSTERED 100 .01 0 3
T1 SCATTERED 100 .01 0 3
T1 SMALL_VC 10000 .0001 0 11
scattered = 50 的选择率： 1/100
clustered between 1 and 5 的选择率：(5-1)/(99-0)+2/100
联合选择率：1/100 * (5-1)/(99-0)+2/100
SQL> --cost(t1_il_good)
SQL> select
2 1 +
3 ceil（24 * ((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)) +
4 ceil(278 * (1/100 * ((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)))
5 from dual;
1+CEIL（24*((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100))+CEIL(278*(1/100*((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4
SQL> --cost(t1_il_bad)
SQL> select
2 1 +
3 ceil（24 * (1/100 * ((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100))) +
4 ceil(10000 * (1/100 * ((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)))
5 from dual;
1+CEIL（24*(1/100*((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)))+CEIL(10000*(1/100*((5-1)/(99-0)+2/100)))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
2、额外的列
为索引添加一个或者两个列。也会导致clustering_factor出现剧烈的变化。
SQL> create table t1
2 as
3 select
4 sysdate + trunc((rownum-1) / 500)movement_date,
5 trunc(dbms_random.value(1,60.999))product_id,
6 trunc(dbms_random.value(1,10.000))qty,
7 lpad(rownum,10)small_vc,
8 rpad('x',100)padding
9 from
10 all_objects
11 where
12 rownum <= 10000
13 ;
表已创建。
SQL> create index t1_i1 on t1(movement_date);
begin
dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
user,
't1',
cascade => true,
estimate_percent => null,
索引已创建。
method_opt => 'for all columns size 1'
8 );
9 end;
10 /
PL/SQL 过程已成功完成。
SQL> create index t1_i2 on t1(movement_date, product_id);
begin
dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(
user,
't1',
cascade => true,
索引已创建。
SQL> 2 3 4 5 6 estimate_percent => null,
7 method_opt => 'for all columns size 1'
8 );
9 end;
10 /
PL/SQL 过程已成功完成。
SQL> select i.index_name,i.blevel,i.leaf_blocks,i.clustering_factor from user_indexes i;
INDEX_NAME BLEVEL LEAF_BLOCKS CLUSTERING_FACTOR
------------------------------ ---------- ----------- -----------------
T1_I1 1 27 184
T1_I2 1 31 6664虽然索引的大小只有一点点增加（这也可以通过叶块的数目提现出来），但是，clustering_factor的值再次出现了严重的变化。
SQL> select /*+ index(t1 t1_i1) */
2 sum(qty)
3 from t1
4 where movement_date = trunc(sysdate) + 7
5 and product_id = 44;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 269862921
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 14 | 12 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 14 | | |
|* 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 8 | 112 | 12 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I1 | 500 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
2 - filter("PRODUCT_ID"=44)
3 - access("MOVEMENT_DATE"=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!)+7)
SQL> select /*+ index(t1 t1_i2) */
2 sum(qty)
3 from t1
4 where movement_date = trunc(sysdate) + 7
5 and product_id = 44;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2003103559
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 14 | 7 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | 14 | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 8 | 112 | 7 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I2 | 8 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - access("MOVEMENT_DATE"=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!)+7 AND "PRODUCT_ID"=44)这个查询就是那种鼓励我们为索引添加额外列的查询类型。可以看见使用复合索引查询成本确实降低了。
SQL> select /*+ index(t1 t1_i1) */
2 product_id, max(small_vc)
3 from t1
4 where movement_date = trunc(sysdate) + 7
5 group by product_id;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2629508439
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 60 | 1320 | 13 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | HASH GROUP BY | | 60 | 1320 | 13 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 500 | 11000 | 12 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I1 | 500 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - access("MOVEMENT_DATE"=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!)+7)
SQL> select /*+ index(t1 t1_i2) */
2 product_id, max(small_vc)
3 from t1
4 where movement_date = trunc(sysdate) + 7
5 group by product_id;
执行计划
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 878233575
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 60 | 1320 | 337 (0)| 00:00:05 |
| 1 | SORT GROUP BY NOSORT | | 60 | 1320 | 337 (0)| 00:00:05 |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| T1 | 500 | 11000 | 337 (0)| 00:00:05 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T1_I2 | 500 | | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
3 - access("MOVEMENT_DATE"=TRUNC(SYSDATE@!)+7)这个查询额外列的存在改变了行访问的顺序（即clustering_factor的值所描述的内容），因此成本也发生了变化。
110
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
