From time to time I’ve wanted to optimize a query by forcing Oracle to execute existence (or non-existence) subqueries in the correct order because I know which subquery will eliminate most data most efficiently, and it’s always a good idea to look for ways to eliminate early. I’ve only just discovered (which doing some tests on 18c) that Oracle 12.2.0.1 introduced the /*+ order_subq() */ hint that seems to be engineered to do exactly that.
Here’s a very simple (and completely artificial) demonstration of use.
rem
rem Script: 122_order_subq.sql
rem Author: Jonathan Lewis
rem Dated: Sep 2018
rem
create table t1 as select * from all_objects;
create table t2 as select * from all_objects;
create table t3 as select * from all_objects;
create index t2_i1 on t2(object_id);
create index t3_i1 on t3(object_id);
prompt =============================
prompt order_subq(@main subq2 subq3)
prompt =============================
explain plan for
select
/*+
qb_name(main)
no_unnest(@subq2)
no_unnest(@subq3)
order_subq(@main subq2 subq3)
*/
t1.object_name, t1.object_type
from
t1
where
exists (
select
/*+ qb_name(subq2) */
null
from t2
where t2.object_id = t1.object_id * 5
)
and exists (
select
/*+ qb_name(subq3) */
null
from t3
where t3.object_id = t1.object_id * 13
)
;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display(null,null,'outline'));
=============================
order_subq(@main subq2 subq3)
=============================
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 2585036931
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 53 | 51090 (1)| 00:00:02 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1 | 61765 | 3196K| 163 (4)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T2_I1 | 1 | 5 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T3_I1 | 1 | 5 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outline Data
-------------
/*+
BEGIN_OUTLINE_DATA
...
ORDER_SUBQ(@"MAIN" "SUBQ2" "SUBQ3")
...
*/
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ NO_UNNEST QB_NAME ("SUBQ2") */ 0 FROM
"T2" "T2" WHERE "T2"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*5) AND EXISTS (SELECT /*+
NO_UNNEST QB_NAME ("SUBQ3") */ 0 FROM "T3" "T3" WHERE
"T3"."OBJECT_ID"=:B2*13))
3 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*5)
4 - access("T3"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*13)
I’ve blocked subquery unnesting for the purposes of the demo and given a query block name to the two subqueries (using a name that identifies the associated table). As you can see, the execution plan uses the subqueries as filter subqueries, operating them in the order I’ve specified in my hint. You can also see that the hint is echoed down into the Outline section of the plan.
It’s possible that this is the plan that the optimizer would have chosen without the order_subq hint, so I ought to see if I can also use the hint to make the subqueries filter in the oppostie order. I happen to know that executing the subquery against t3 is likely to eliminate more rows that executing the subquery against t2. (The “* 13” compared to the “* 5” is significant) so I really want the subqueries to be used in the opposite order anyway – so here’s what happens when I reverse the order in the hint:
prompt =============================
prompt order_subq(@main subq3 subq2)
prompt =============================
explain plan for
select
/*+
qb_name(main)
no_unnest(@subq2)
no_unnest(@subq3)
order_subq(@main subq3 subq2)
*/
t1.object_name, t1.object_type
from
t1
where
exists (
select
/*+ qb_name(subq2) */
null
from t2
where t2.object_id = t1.object_id * 5
)
and exists (
select
/*+ qb_name(subq3) */
null
from t3
where t3.object_id = t1.object_id * 13
)
;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display(null,null,'outline'));
=============================
order_subq(@main subq2 subq3)
=============================
PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 3585049451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 53 | 51090 (1)| 00:00:02 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | |
| 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1 | 61765 | 3196K| 163 (4)| 00:00:01 |
|* 3 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T3_I1 | 1 | 5 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | T2_I1 | 1 | 5 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outline Data
-------------
/*+
BEGIN_OUTLINE_DATA
...
ORDER_SUBQ(@"MAIN" "SUBQ3" "SUBQ2")
...
*/
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------
1 - filter( EXISTS (SELECT /*+ NO_UNNEST QB_NAME ("SUBQ3") */ 0 FROM
"T3" "T3" WHERE "T3"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*13) AND EXISTS (SELECT /*+
NO_UNNEST QB_NAME ("SUBQ2") */ 0 FROM "T2" "T2" WHERE
"T2"."OBJECT_ID"=:B2*5))
3 - access("T3"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*13)
4 - access("T2"."OBJECT_ID"=:B1*5)
With the modified hint in place the order of the filter subqueries is reversed. Notice how the Predicate section also echoes the ordering of the subqueries.
Footnote
It should be noted that the order_subq() hint doesn’t get mentioned in the 18c SQL Language Reference “Alphabetical List of Hints”. If it were then one of the little oddities that might get a mention is that the optimizer seems to ignore the hint if you disable CPU costing. (not that anyone should be doing that since 10g).