Oracle数据库中,consistent gets在判断一段SQL的性能时非常有用,通常来讲比较两段SQL的性能好坏不是看谁的执行时间短,而是看谁的consistent gets小。不过这也不是绝对的,下面这个例子就是一个反例。
反例子如下:
ETL@RACTEST>create table test( a int);
Table created. Elapsed: 00:00:00.05
ETL@RACTEST>ETL@RACTEST>begin
2 for i in 1..10000 loop
3 insert into test values (i);
4 end loop;
5 end;
6 / PL/SQL procedure successfully completed. Elapsed: 00:00:00.44
ETL@RACTEST>set autot trace
ETL@RACTEST>ETL@RACTEST>select * from test;
10000 rows selected. Elapsed: 00:00:00.05 Execution Plan Plan hash value: 1357081020 -------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 10000 | 126K| 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST | 10000 | 126K| 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - dynamic sampling used for this statement
Statistics 0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
690 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
214231 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
7791 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10000 rows processed 可以看到select *读了690个内存块。 ETL@RACTEST>select * from test order by 1; 10000 rows selected. Elapsed: 00:00:00.04 Execution Plan Plan hash value: 2007178810 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time | | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 10000 | 126K| 7 (15)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 10000 | 126K| 7 (15)| 00:00:01 |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST | 10000 | 126K| 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - dynamic sampling used for this statement
Statistics 0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
23 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
174288 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
7791 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
668 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
1 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10000 rows processed
再看一下order by,竟然只有23个逻辑读!
1. select * from test;
2. select * from test order by 1;
第1个SQL比第2个SQL效率高是毋庸置疑的。但是为什么第2个SQL的consistent gets如此之少,我起初也是百思不得其解,最终我在ASK TOM中找到了答案。
原因:
一:通常情况下,不在logical RAM buffer中的数据要通过physical reads来读取,而physical reads后通常会紧跟着一个consistent gets。因此一般情况下consistent gets是要比physical reads大的。但是有一个特例,如果physical reads得到的数据直接用于HASH或者SORT,则只记为physical reads不记为consistent gets。所以加上order by后有可能physical reads多但consistent gets少。不过这个原因不是我这里现象产生的原因,因为我这个实验里根本没有physical reads。
二:arraysize的影响。arraysize是指读取数据时一次读取得到的行数。这个值默认为15,使用show arraysize命令可以查看。一个数据块例如有100条记录,那么并不是读取这个块一次就能取到所有数据,以arraysize=15为例,就要有100/15=7次consistent gets。把arraysize设置得大一点可以降低consistent gets,不过有时候可能会消耗更多的资源。如果我们做select count(0) from test;操作,那么Oracle会把arraysize暂时设为test的行数,因此consistent gets会很少:
代码如下:
ETL@RACTEST>select count(0) from test; Elapsed: 00:00:00.00 Execution Plan Plan hash value: 1950795681 --------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Time | | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| TEST | 10000 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
------------------------------------------------------------------- Note - dynamic sampling used for this statement
Statistics 0 recursive calls
0 db block gets
23 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
515 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
465 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
0 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
1 rows processed
可以看到select count(0)只需要23个逻辑读。一共10000条数据,10000/15=666.667 ,好,667+23=690!和第1个SQL的consistent gets竟然惊人的一致!这不是巧合,这就是consistent gets的计算公式。我们还可以发现select count(0)和第2个SQL的consistent gets竟然也惊人地一致,都是23!
TOM的解释是:在select * from test order by 1;时,Oracle也把arraysize临时设为test表的行数,它把所有数据先全部取出来放到sort区做排序,而在sort区的读取就不算在consistent gets里了。所以虽然第2个SQL和select count(0)的consistent gets相同,但它的效率一定比select count(0)低,我们看执行计划里的COST便可以得知,第2个SQL的COST为7,select count(0)的COST为6,第1个SQL的COST也为6。(COST相同并不代表执行效率完全相同)
关于Oracle数据库consistent gets的知识就介绍到这里了,希望本次的介绍能够对您有所收获!
【编辑推荐】
【责任编辑:赵鹏 TEL:(010)68476606】
点赞 0