DECODE和CASE的性能比较

 Oracle的DECODE函数功能很强,灵活运用的话可以避免多次扫描,从而提高查询的性能。而CASE是9i以后提供的语法,这个语法更加的灵活,提供了IF THEN ELSE的功能。

 

对于很多情况,DECODE和CASE都能解决问题,个人更倾向于使用DECODE,一方面是从8i保留下来的习惯,另一方面是DECODE的语法更加的简洁,代码量要小一些。

不过今天在看Oracle9i的数据仓库手册时发现,Oracle在文档中提到CASE语句的效率会更高一些,尤其是CASE 表达式 WHEN 常量 THEN的语法,效率要比CASE WHEN 表达式 THEN的语法更高一些。对于后面这种说法倒是没有太多的疑问,对于CASE比DECODE效率高这种说法倒是第一次看到,印象中DECODE效率很高,应该不会比CASE的效率差。

到底效率如何,还是要具体的实例来说:

SQL> CREATE TABLE T AS

2 SELECT A.*

3 FROM DBA_OBJECTS A, DBA_MVIEWS;

Table created.

SQL> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM T;

COUNT(*)

----------

6075760

下面检查DECODE和两种CASE语句的效率:

SQL> SET ARRAY 1000

SQL> SET TIMING ON

SQL> SET AUTOT TRACE 

SQL> SELECT DECODE(OWNER, 'SYSTEM', 'SYSTEM', 'SYS', 'SYSTEM', 'USER') 

2 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:07.24

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

46288564 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

SQL> SELECT CASE OWNER WHEN 'SYSTEM' THEN 'SYSTEM' 

2 WHEN 'SYS' THEN 'SYSTEM' 

3 ELSE 'USER' END 

4 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:07.22

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

46288578 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

SQL> SELECT CASE WHEN OWNER = 'SYSTEM' THEN 'SYSTEM' 

2 WHEN OWNER = 'SYS' THEN 'SYSTEM' 

3 ELSE 'USER' END 

4 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:07.23

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 68M| 13828 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

46288585 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

测试结果确实是CASE的简单表达式写法效率最高,然后是CASE的另一种写法,DECODE效率最低。但是对于600W的记录,最终结果只有0.01到0.02秒的查询,实在没有办法得出上面的结论,因为这个差别实在是太小,以至于任何其他的一些影响都足以改变测试结果,如要一定要得出结论,那么结论就是3种方式的效率基本相同。

不过由于CASE表达式更加灵活,使得以前DECODE必须运用的一些技巧得以简化,这时使用CASE方式,确实可以得到一些性能上的提高,比如:

SQL> SELECT DECODE(SIGN(OBJECT_ID), 1, '+', -1, '-', '0') 

2 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:04.94

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

31491431 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

SQL> SELECT CASE WHEN OBJECT_ID > 0 THEN '+'

2 WHEN OBJECT_ID < 0 THEN '-'

3 ELSE '0' END

4 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:04.60

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

31491449 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

这里CASE带来性能提升的主要原因实际上是CASE避免了SIGN函数的调用,而并不是CASE本身的性能要高于DECODE,事实上如果这里使用SIGN并利用CASE的所谓高效语法:

SQL> SELECT CASE SIGN(OBJECT_ID) WHEN 1 THEN '+'

2 WHEN -1 THEN '-'

3 ELSE '0' END

4 FROM T;

6075760 rows selected.

Elapsed: 00:00:04.97

Execution Plan

----------------------------------------------------------

Plan hash value: 1601196873

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T | 4245K| 52M| 13840 (1)| 00:03:14 |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note

-----

- dynamic sampling used for this statement

 

Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------

0 recursive calls

0 db block gets

47551 consistent gets

0 physical reads

0 redo size

31491445 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client

67317 bytes received via SQL*Net from client

6077 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client

0 sorts (memory)

0 sorts (disk)

6075760 rows processed

可以看到,这时效率比DECODE还低。

根据上面的测试可以得出结论,无论是DECODE还是CASE方式的两种写法,执行效率没有明显的差别。

  • 0
    点赞
  • 1
    收藏
    觉得还不错? 一键收藏
  • 0
    评论

“相关推荐”对你有帮助么?

  • 非常没帮助
  • 没帮助
  • 一般
  • 有帮助
  • 非常有帮助
提交
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值