Exchange Partition Validation

Testing an upgrade from to 19.6, we observed a very significant degradation in partition exchange performance.

Is it a case of expected behaviour or not?

The documentation is quite clear in both 11.2 and 19c:

When you specify WITHOUT VALIDATION for the exchange partition operation, this is normally a fast operation because it involves only data dictionary updates. However, if the table or partitioned table involved in the exchange operation has a primary key or unique constraint enabled, then the exchange operation is performed as if WITH VALIDATION were specified to maintain the integrity of the constraints.

Personally, in a data warehouse with exchange partition I would tend to have defined such a constraint as ENABLE NOVALIDATE if it was even required.

The CONSTRAINT is a PK constraint backed up a local index, partition keys as leading columns.

The trace file points to a clear culprit:

 select /*+ first_rows(1) ordered */ 1 
 from "X"."FB_P_161261_SP_9" A? ,"X"."FACILITY_BALANCE" B 
 and ( tbl$or$idx$part$num("X"."FACILITY_BALANCE",0,0,0 ,B? .rowid )  <  62358 or  tbl$or$idx$part$num("X"."FACILITY_BALANCE",0,0,0 ,B? .rowid )  >  62358 ) 
 and tbl$or$idx$part$num("X"."FACILITY_BALANCE",0,0,0 ,A? ."SNAPSHOT_ID" ,A? ."SNAPSHOT_VERSION" )  <>  62358 and rownum < 2

call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Parse        1      8.40       8.46          0          0          0           0
Execute      1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Fetch        1   4229.27    5278.73   27688674   27783294          0           0
------- ------  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
total        3   4237.67    5287.20   27688674   27783294          0           0 

We know from Jonathan Lewis’s work on that this is expected internal SQL from a ENABLE VALIDATE constraint in an EXCHANGE WITHOUT VALIDATION scenario

So why the big change in performance?

Probably this is an indication of just a simple execution plan issue. I would need to trace the same in 11g to confirm which is easier said than done under the circumstances.

This is the info from the 19c tkprof at least:

Rows (1st) Rows (avg) Rows (max) Row Source Operation

---------- ---------- ---------- ---------------------------------------------------
         0          0          0 COUNT STOPKEY (cr=27783294 pr=27688674 pw=0 time=287636041 us starts=1)
         0          0          0  NESTED LOOPS (cr=27783294 pr=27688674 pw=0 time=287636035 us starts=1 cost=4 size=1061 card=1)
 238651024  238651024  238651024   VIEW VW_JF_SET$91EDBF25 (cr=27783288 pr=27688673 pw=0 time=3245932610 us starts=1 cost=4 size=62 card=2)
 238651024  238651024  238651024    UNION-ALL (cr=27783288 pr=27688673 pw=0 time=2708356160 us starts=1)
  11351302   11351302   11351302     PARTITION COMBINED ITERATOR PARTITION: KEY KEY (cr=69570 pr=69469 pw=0 time=5491712 us starts=1 cost=2 size=43 card=1)
  11351302   11351302   11351302      INDEX STORAGE FAST FULL SCAN FIRST ROWS PK_FACILITY_BALANCE PARTITION: KEY KEY (cr=69570 pr=69469 pw=0 time=4380693 us starts=20 cost=2 size=43 card=1)(object id 42709299)
 227299722  227299722  227299722     PARTITION COMBINED ITERATOR PARTITION: KEY KEY (cr=27713718 pr=27619204 pw=0 time=2376271490 us starts=1 cost=2 size=43 card=1)
 227299722  227299722  227299722      INDEX STORAGE FAST FULL SCAN FIRST ROWS PK_FACILITY_BALANCE PARTITION: KEY KEY (cr=27713718 pr=27619204 pw=0 time=1916674628 us starts=62357 cost=2 size=43 card=1)(object id 42709299)
         0          0          0   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN FB_P_161261_SP_9$C3 (cr=6 pr=1 pw=0 time=1734545604 us starts=238651024 cost=0 size=1030 card=1)(object id 72993779)  

What is clear is that if the constraint definition is changed to ENABLE NOVALIDATE then the exchange partition takes about 1 minute. Which still feels a bit slow but a heck of a lot better than 90 minutes.

If you see Mohamed Houri’s comment below, this experience is not isolated and in his case, they went for EXCHANGE PARTITION (WITH VALIDATION). After the Christmas break, I will re-evaluate the choice I made.

4 Responses to Exchange Partition Validation

  1. hourim says:

    Hi Dom

    We’ve encountered the same issue when we moved from 11g to 19c. We opened an SR and, as almost always, we didn’t get any helpful input.

    The workaround we’ve used is simply to get rid of the WITHOUT VALIDATION clause 🙂

    from this
    to this

    Best regards
    Mohamed Houri

  2. Maxim says:

    Hi, Dom, we either faced this issue (also – the plan you showing was similar to ours) – the issue was warkarounded with setting ( as you can see – optimizer is doing join factorization)
    alter session set “_optimizer_join_factorization” = false ;
    and consequently (as resulted plan was still not optimal)
    alter session set “_optimizer_cbqt_or_expansion”= off;
    AFAIR – the first parameter was sufficient in pure sql, but if exchange partition is done from within plsql – the plan was different and the second parameter needed to be set either.
    Finally we convinced Oracle Support to fill the bug 30347410 and got the patch 30347410 (which is somehow untypical – this bugfix is not activated by default, so it has to be enabled via fix_control).
    As of now – The fix for 30347410 is first included in (OCT 2020) DB Release Update Revision(DB RU)



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: