This is assuming you need to do a physical I/O to obtain the blocks. Of course, if the blocks already reside in the buffer cache, then it's a different story.
Regards, Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, in many cases range scan is faster than a fast full scan. Range scan recursively hits the nodes that are needed and skips the ones that are not. So it reads less blocks.
So if you are looking for a 'range' or a specific value, range scan beats fast full scan most of the time. Less Logical and Physical I/Os.
test it and hint your queries
From: David Hau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2004/01/26 Mon PM 10:34:25 EST To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: When does Oracle use 'Index Fast Scan'
Correction: the Index Range Scan can be parallelized when it involves multiple partitions.
- Dave
David Hau wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Fast Full Index Scan. This is used when the index contains all the columns necessary to answer the query.
It's faster than a Full Table Scan because indexes are smaller than entire rows, so a Fast Full Index Scan will scan fewer blocks than a Full Table Scan.
It's faster than an Index Range Scan firstly because Fast Full Index Scan scans the blocks in sequential order, whereas the Index Range Scan traverses the B-tree index structure in scanning the blocks, resulting in a random access I/O pattern which is slower. This is also why the Oracle documentation says that with a Fast Full Index Scan, the result is not sorted by the index key (because the result is not obtained by traversing the index structure.) Secondly, the better performance is also because the Fast Full Index Scan uses multiblock reads and is capable of parallel operation, whereas the Index Range Scan is capable of neither.
Regards, Dave.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found that the vast majority of time that Oracle chooses this method, my statistics are stale and the query is sub-optimal. One time, Oracle changed from a 'range scan' to this type of scan with a FIRST_ROWS hint and this reduced performance.
This is just a full scan of the index, one block at a time right? When would this ever be superior to a Fast Full Scan or a Range Scan?
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: David Hau INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: David Hau INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
