COLLECT DISTINCT in PL/SQL Works in Oracle 12.2

About a year ago I wrote the post Subtleties – Part 1 (SQL and PL/SQL). I wrote there:

Almost every valid SQL statement (i.e., that is executed successfully by the SQL engine) can be embedded successfully as a static SQL in PL/SQL. Almost, but not every statement.
One example is the COLLECT aggregate function with the DISTINCT option.

And I showed an example that was executed in 11.2.0.4 and in 12.1.0.2.

Today I tried it in 12.2.0.1, and I was very pleased to see that now COLLECT DISTINCT is working also in PL/SQL.
Continue reading “COLLECT DISTINCT in PL/SQL Works in Oracle 12.2”

(Lack of) Optimization of Unique Constraint Creation

The Constraint Optimization series:

In the previous parts of this series I showed that Oracle does a nice optimization – that may save plenty of time – when we add in a single ALTER TABLE statement a new (nullable with no default value) column and a corresponding:
– inline (a.k.a. “column-level”) check constraint
or
– foreign key constraint (either inline or out-of-line)

What about unique constraints?

When we create a unique constraint on some column, Oracle creates by default a corresponding unique B*Tree index on that column, in order to enforce the constraint.
When we add a new column with no default value to a non-empty table, and in the same ALTER TABLE statement we create a unique constraint on that column, then the corresponding index will be created, by definition, with no entries (as B*Tree indexes do not contain entirely NULL keys). It would be nice if Oracle would simply create an empty index in this case, without scanning all the table rows, but unfortunately this kind of optimization is not done.
Continue reading “(Lack of) Optimization of Unique Constraint Creation”

Optimization of Foreign Key Constraint Creation

The Constraint Optimization series:

In a recent post I showed that Oracle does a nice optimization when we add a new (nullable with no default value) column with an inline (a.k.a. “column-level”) check constraint in a single ALTER TABLE statement. This optimization does not apply for out-of-line (“table-level”) check constraints.

So, what about foreign key constraints?

Clearly, when adding a new nullable with no default value column to a table which contains records, then, by definition, the new column has NULL in all the existing records. If in the same ALTER TABLE statement we also create a foreign key constraint for the new column, then, by definition, the constraint is valid for all the existing records, because NULLs always pass the foreign key constraint check. So in this case it is unnecessary to access each and every record of the table for the validation phase of the foreign key constraint creation, and indeed Oracle applies this optimization, in both inline and out-of-line foreign key constraints. Let’s see it.
Continue reading “Optimization of Foreign Key Constraint Creation”

Optimization that Violates Data Integrity

The Constraint Optimization series:

In the previous post I showed that Oracle does a nice optimization when we add a new (nullable with no default value) column with an inline check constraint in a single ALTER TABLE statement.
However, there is one case where this optimization allows for data integrity violation instead of forbidding it (which makes it a bug, in this specific case, rather than an optimization). It happens when the check constraint is “column IS NOT NULL”.

I’ll setup a table with a few records for demonstrating this:

SQL> create table t (x number);

Table created.

SQL> insert into t select rownum from dual connect by level<=10;

10 rows created.

SQL> commit;

Commit complete.

First, let's try to add a column with an out-of-line constraint, so the optimization will not apply:

SQL>
SQL> ALTER TABLE T ADD (
  2    C NUMBER,
  3    CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C IS NOT NULL)
  4  );
  CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C IS NOT NULL)
             *
ERROR at line 3:
ORA-02293: cannot validate (TRANZMATE_PRODUCTION.C_CHK) - check constraint violated

It failed, and that's good.

Now, let's try to add the same column with the same check constraint, but this time we'll use an inline constraint:

SQL> ALTER TABLE T ADD (
  2    C NUMBER CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C IS NOT NULL)
  3  );

Table altered.

And it succeeded, although it should have failed.
So now we have a validated constraint, stating that C IS NOT NULL, and at the same time the table contains records, and in all of them C IS NULL:

SQL> select table_name,search_condition,status,validated,rely
  2  from user_constraints where constraint_name='C_CHK';

TABLE_NAME SEARCH_CONDITION     STATUS     VALIDATED  RELY
---------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------
T          C IS NOT NULL        ENABLED    VALIDATED

SQL> select * from t;

         X          C
---------- ----------
         1
         2
         3
         4
         5
         6
         7
         8
         9
        10

10 rows selected.

Since we're talking about adding a nullable column with no default value to an existing table that already contains rows, specifying a check constraint that states that this column is not nullable doesn't make much sense, and if someone tries to do it it's probably their bug. Still, it would be nice to get an error in this case, rather than violating the data integrity.

Why does it happen?

When Oracle validates some check constraint, it checks if there are records for which the constraint condition is FALSE. When the column is NULL, then usually the condition evaluates to NULL, not to FALSE, so the constraint is valid. For example, when C is NULL, then "C>0" is NULL (neither FALSE nor TRUE).
I guess this is why Oracle skips the validation step completely as part of this optimization.

What should happen?

It's good that Oracle doesn't validate each and every record, as it's really unnecessary, but to make this optimization foolproof it should validate a single value – NULL.

Optimization of Check Constraint Creation

The Constraint Optimization series:

I have a table T with many records and I want to add a new column C to this table with some check constraint on C.

Does it matter if I use the following statement

ALTER TABLE T ADD (C NUMBER, CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C>0));

or this one

ALTER TABLE T ADD (C NUMBER CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C>0));

?
Note that the only difference is the comma that appears in the first option and not in the second one.

It certainly matters.
In the first option the constraint is an out-of-line (“table-level”) check constraint, while in the second option it is an inline (“column-level”) one.
With out-of-line check constraint Oracle scans the table, and validates that each and every record satisfies the constraint. This is similar to adding the column in one statement, and then adding the constraint in a second statement.
But when we add the column with an inline check constraint in a single statement, Oracle optimizes this process. Since the added column is NULL for all the existing records, it is actually unnecessary to access the records in order to perform the validation.

We can see a small example (tested in 11.2.0.4, 12.1.0.2, 12.2.0.1). First, adding the column with the out-of-line check constraint:

> create table t (x varchar2(1000));

Table created.

> insert /*+ append */ into t
> select lpad(rownum,1000,'x') from dual connect by level<=1e6;

1000000 rows created.

> commit;

Commit complete.

> col value new_value value_0 noprint
> select b.value from v$statname a, v$mystat b 
> where a.statistic# = b.statistic# and a.name = 'session logical reads';

> set timing on
> ALTER TABLE T ADD (C NUMBER, CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C>0));

Table altered.

Elapsed: 00:00:04.27

> set timing off
> select b.value-&VALUE_0 logical_reads from v$statname a, v$mystat b
> where a.statistic# = b.statistic# and a.name = 'session logical reads';

LOGICAL_READS
-------------
       143243

Note the elapsed time and the number of logical reads – most of them are due to accessing all the rows of T in order to validate the check constraint.
Now, let’s see the same example but with the inline check constraint instead of the out-of-line one:

> drop table t purge;

Table dropped.

> create table t (x varchar2(1000));

Table created.

> insert /*+ append */ into t
> select lpad(rownum,1000,'x') from dual connect by level<=1e6;

1000000 rows created.

> commit;

Commit complete.

> col value new_value value_0 noprint
> select b.value from v$statname a, v$mystat b
> where a.statistic# = b.statistic# and a.name = 'session logical reads';

> set timing on
> ALTER TABLE T ADD (C NUMBER CONSTRAINT C_CHK CHECK (C>0));

Table altered.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.01

> set timing off
> select b.value-&VALUE_0 logical_reads from v$statname a, v$mystat b
> where a.statistic# = b.statistic# and a.name = 'session logical reads';

LOGICAL_READS
-------------
          359

Much faster, with significantly less logical reads, since accessing the actual records is omitted.

A Recipe for Summoning the RBO Monster (even in Oracle 12c): On Delete Cascade, Function-Based Index and Missing Table Statistics

The last version of Oracle in which CHOOSE was officially supported as an OPTIMIZER_MODE parameter value was 9.2.
This is what the documentation of Oracle 9.2 says about it:

choose
The optimizer chooses between a cost-based approach and a rule-based approach based on whether statistics are available.
If the data dictionary contains statistics for at least one of the accessed tables, then the optimizer uses a cost-based approach and optimizes with a goal of best throughput. If the data dictionary contains only some statistics, then the cost-based approach is used, and the optimizer must guess the statistics for the subjects without any statistics. This can result in sub-optimal execution plans. If the data dictionary contains no statistics for any of the accessed tables, then the optimizer uses a rule-based approach.

In subsequent versions CHOOSE does not appear in the documentation as a valid value, and the “What’s New in Oracle Performance?” chapter in the documentation of Oracle 10.1 includes this sentence:

Some consequences of the desupport of RBO are:
• CHOOSE and RULE are no longer supported as OPTIMIZER_MODE initialization parameter values …

But the Oracle database keeps using CHOOSE, and therefore keeps potentially using the RBO, internally, even in version 12c. And last week I hit a performance issue that was caused because of this fact and some poor circumstances.

Here is a simplified example, running on Oracle 12.1.0.2.

We have two tables – PARENTS and CHILDREN – with an “on delete cascade” foreign key constraint.

> create table parents (
    id number not null primary key
  );

Table created.

> insert into parents select rownum from dual connect by level<=10000;

10000 rows created.

> create table children (
    id number not null primary key,
    parent_id number not null references parents (id) on delete cascade,
    filler varchar2(4000)
  );

Table created.

> insert into children
  select rownum,mod(rownum,10000)+1,lpad('x',4000,'x')
  from dual
  connect by level<=100000;

100000 rows created.

> commit;

Commit complete.

There is an index that supports the foreign key, and it is a function-based index. Note that the leading column of the index is simply the referencing column.

> create index children_idx on children (parent_id, substr(filler,1,10));

Index created.

Now let’s delete a record from the PARENTS table.

> alter system flush buffer_cache;

System altered.

> set timing on
> delete parents where id=1;

1 row deleted.

Elapsed: 00:00:27.80
> set timing off
> roll
Rollback complete.

Why did it take so much time?

When we delete a record from PARENTS, Oracle implicitly deletes the child records of this parent (because of the “on delete cascade” foreign key). This is the recursive SQL statement:

 delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = :1

Oracle uses the CHOOSE optimizer mode for the implicit deletion from CHILDREN.

> select value,isdefault
  from v$sql_optimizer_env
  where sql_id='f7j1aq9z8k6r1'
  and child_number=0
  and name='optimizer_mode';

VALUE                ISDEFAULT
-------------------- ---------
choose               NO

1 row selected.

Unfortunately I forgot to gather statistics on the CHILDREN table. The lack of statistics means that Oracle chose to use the rule-based optimizer for the implicit DELETE statement.
And this means that it cannot use the CHILDREN_IDX index, because it is a function-based index.

> SELECT * FROM table(DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY_CURSOR('f7j1aq9z8k6r1',0));

PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL_ID  f7j1aq9z8k6r1, child number 0
-------------------------------------
 delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = :1

Plan hash value: 3379301338

---------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation          | Name     |
---------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT   |          |
|   1 |  DELETE            | CHILDREN |
|*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| CHILDREN |
---------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - filter("PARENT_ID"=:1)

Note
-----
   - rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)


23 rows selected.

If I execute the DELETE FROM CHILDREN statement explicitly, the CBO chooses the good execution plan that uses the index, because the statistics on the index have been automatically gathered during the index creation. It’s the missing statistics on the table that caused the implicit (recursive) DELETE statement to use the RBO.

> alter system flush buffer_cache;

System altered.

> set timing on
> delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = 1;

10 rows deleted.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.21
> set timing off
> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor());

PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL_ID  0cm664fx8b944, child number 0
-------------------------------------
delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = 1

Plan hash value: 1030488021

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation         | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT  |              |       |       |     2 (100)|          |
|   1 |  DELETE           | CHILDREN     |       |       |            |          |
|*  2 |   INDEX RANGE SCAN| CHILDREN_IDX |    10 | 40100 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - access("PARENT_ID"=1)


19 rows selected.

Even if I didn’t have statistics on the index, the CBO would still choose the index for performing the explicit DELETE, because it would use dynamic sampling:

> exec dbms_stats.delete_index_stats (user,'CHILDREN_IDX')

PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.

> delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = 3;

10 rows deleted.

> select * from table(dbms_xplan.display_cursor());

PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL_ID  a8x8wszgx1g6r, child number 0
-------------------------------------
delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = 3

Plan hash value: 1030488021

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation         | Name         | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT  |              |       |       |     3 (100)|          |
|   1 |  DELETE           | CHILDREN     |       |       |            |          |
|*  2 |   INDEX RANGE SCAN| CHILDREN_IDX |  1066 |  2111K|     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - access("PARENT_ID"=3)

Note
-----
   - dynamic statistics used: dynamic sampling (level=2)


23 rows selected.

Finally, if the index were a regular one rather than function-based, then a good plan would have been chosen for the recursive SQL, because the RBO prefers an index range scan over a full table scan:

> drop index children_idx;

Index dropped.

> create index children_idx on children (parent_id, id);

Index created.

> alter system flush buffer_cache;

System altered.

> set timing on
> delete parents where id=4;

1 row deleted.

Elapsed: 00:00:00.14
> set timing off

> select * from table(DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY_CURSOR('f7j1aq9z8k6r1',0));

PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQL_ID  f7j1aq9z8k6r1, child number 0
-------------------------------------
 delete from "DEMO"."CHILDREN" where "PARENT_ID" = :1

Plan hash value: 1030488021

------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation         | Name         |
------------------------------------------
|   0 | DELETE STATEMENT  |              |
|   1 |  DELETE           | CHILDREN     |
|*  2 |   INDEX RANGE SCAN| CHILDREN_IDX |
------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   2 - access("PARENT_ID"=:1)

Note
-----
   - rule based optimizer used (consider using cbo)


23 rows selected.

The “Guardian Trigger” Design Pattern

Suppose that every time we add records into the T1 table we have to do some additional stuff.
One option to implement this is by using an AFTER INSERT trigger that will perform this additional stuff, but I really dislike this option (mainly because the code becomes hidden in a way, and there may be a negative impact on performance).
I prefer writing a procedure that inserts the records into T1 and performs this additional stuff. 

CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE my_package AS 
    PROCEDURE insert_t1 (...);
END my_package;
/
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY my_package AS 
    PROCEDURE insert_t1 (...) IS 
    BEGIN 
        INSERT INTO t1 ...;
        -- do some additional stuff, that must be done
        -- whenever inserting new records into T1 
    END insert_t1;
END my_package;
/

But what will happen if someone (perhaps even myself in one year from now) will insert records into T1 from another place (in another procedure or directly via an INSERT statement) and will not know (or maybe forget) about the mandatory additional stuff?
The best thing would be to make this procedure the one and only way to insert records into T1. But how to do it?
I like doing it in a way that I call “the guardian trigger”, using a combination of a global variable and a trigger (but this trigger doesn’t do actual stuff, it is only a gatekeeper).

I’m adding a Boolean global variable and initialize it to FALSE. I change it to TRUE at the beginning of the insert_t1 procedure, and make sure to set it back to FALSE when leaving the procedure.

CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY my_package AS 
    g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed BOOLEAN := FALSE; 
    PROCEDURE insert_t1 (...) IS 
    BEGIN 
        g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := TRUE; 
        INSERT INTO t1 ...;
        -- do some additional stuff, that must be done
        -- whenever inserting new records into T1 
        g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := FALSE; 
    EXCEPTION 
        WHEN OTHERS THEN 
            g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := FALSE; 
            RAISE; 
    END insert_t1;
END my_package;
/

Now I’m adding a function – a public function – to get the current value of the global variable:

CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE my_package AS 
    FUNCTION is_insert_into_t1_allowed RETURN BOOLEAN;  
    PROCEDURE insert_t1 (...);
END my_package;
/

CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY my_package AS 
    g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed BOOLEAN := FALSE;
    FUNCTION is_insert_into_t1_allowed RETURN BOOLEAN IS 
    BEGIN 
        RETURN g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed; 
    END is_insert_into_t1_allowed;  
    PROCEDURE insert_t1 (...) IS 
    BEGIN 
        g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := TRUE;
        INSERT INTO t1 ...;
        -- do some additional stuff, that must be done
        -- whenever inserting new records into T1 
        g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := FALSE;
    EXCEPTION 
        WHEN OTHERS THEN 
            g_is_insert_into_t1_allowed := FALSE;
            RAISE;
    END insert_t1;
END my_package;
/

And as the final step I’m creating a statement level trigger – BEFORE INSERT ON T1; a trigger that doesn’t change anything, it just checks that the global variable is currently set to TRUE.

CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER t1_trig
    BEFORE INSERT ON t1
BEGIN 
    IF NOT my_package.is_insert_into_t1_allowed THEN 
        raise_application_error(-20000,
          'INSERTs into T1 are allowed only via my_package.insert_t1');
    END IF;
END t1_trig;
/

So if I’ll try to insert records into T1 not via the procedure the trigger will not allow it, it will raise an exception saying “INSERTs into T1 are allowed only via my_package.insert_t1”.
Obviously this pattern can be implemented for other operations, not only for INSERT.

The Vicious Index that Sabotages Plans it is not Part of [@DBoriented]

We all know that adding a new index may change the execution plans of existing queries – sometimes improving the performance, other times causing a performance degradation (and sometimes not making any difference).
But is it true even if the new index is not used by the new execution plan? And even if the new index is invisible?
I’ve recently discovered that the answer is yes for a specific scenario that involves a descending and function-based index.

Here is a simple example – tested on 11.2.0.4 and 12.1.0.2.

create table t (
  n1 number not null,
  n2 number not null,
  n3 number not null,
  str varchar2(100)
);

insert /*+ append */ into t 
  select rownum,rownum,rownum,rownum 
  from dual 
  connect by level<=100000;
commit;

exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats (user,'T')

create index t_i1 on t (n1, round(n3) desc);

explain plan for
  select null
  from   t
  where  n1 = :n1
  order  by n1,
            round(n3) desc;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display());

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation        | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |      |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  1 |  INDEX RANGE SCAN| T_I1 |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   1 - access("N1"=TO_NUMBER(:N1))

The execution plan simply retrieves results from the T_I1 index. The results are already sorted in the desired way, as they are stored like that in the index, so the plan does not include a sorting step. Also, since we don’t need any column from the table, the plan does not access T at all.

Now let’s add a second index:

create index t_i2 on t (n2, round(n3));

Note that this index contains the same expression as in the first index – round(n3) – but in the “regular” ascending order. As the new index starts with n2, it is quite obvious that the previous plan – simply range scanning the T_I1 index – is still the best option.
But the plan has changed now – it still accesses T_I1 – but it does two more steps: accessing the table and sorting:

explain plan for
  select null
  from   t
  where  n1 = :n1
  order  by n1,
            round(n3) desc;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display());

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                            | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                     |      |     1 |    18 |     4  (25)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                       |      |     1 |    18 |     4  (25)| 00:00:01 |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T    |     1 |    18 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T_I1 |     1 |       |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   3 - access("N1"=TO_NUMBER(:N1))

Even if the second index is invisible, it still confuses the optimizer:

alter index t_i2 invisible;

explain plan for
  select null
  from   t
  where  n1 = :n1
  order  by n1,
            round(n3) desc;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display());

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation                            | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT                     |      |     1 |    18 |     4  (25)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 |  SORT ORDER BY                       |      |     1 |    18 |     4  (25)| 00:00:01 |
|   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID BATCHED| T    |     1 |    18 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  3 |    INDEX RANGE SCAN                  | T_I1 |     1 |       |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   3 - access("N1"=TO_NUMBER(:N1))

Only after dropping the second index, we get our original plan back:

drop index t_i2;

explain plan for
  select null
  from   t
  where  n1 = :n1
  order  by n1,
            round(n3) desc;

select * from table(dbms_xplan.display());

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id  | Operation        | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |      |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|*  1 |  INDEX RANGE SCAN| T_I1 |     1 |    10 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
---------------------------------------------------

   1 - access("N1"=TO_NUMBER(:N1))

OTN Appreciation Day: Edition-Based Redefinition

Here’s my contribution to the OTN Appreciation Day.

Edition-Based Redefinition (EBR) is a really great feature, or more accurately a set of features, that was introduced in Oracle 11.2 and allows for online application upgrades using hot rollover. If you know me then you know that I talk (ok, preach) about it a lot, and from a long and successful experience.

It is impossible to learn EBR in 5 minutes, but perhaps you’ll understand why I like EBR from this 5-minute introduction-concise-summary video, and hopefully you’ll be intrigued to learn more:

INSERT into a View with a GROUP BY Clause

When I wrote the previous post, about updatable views, I noticed an interesting issue.

The documentation says:

If a view is defined by a query that contains SET or DISTINCT operators, a GROUP BY clause, or a group function, then rows cannot be inserted into, updated in, or deleted from the base tables using the view.

Let’s create a view with a GROUP BY clause and a group function:

ORA$BASE> create table t (
  2      x number,
  3      y date,
  4      z varchar2(100)
  5  );

Table created.

ORA$BASE> create or replace view v as
  2    select x, y, max(z) z from t
  3    group by x, y;

View created.

And now let’s see if Oracle “thinks” that this view is inherently updatable:

ORA$BASE> select column_name,updatable,insertable,deletable
  2    from user_updatable_columns
  3   where table_name='V';

COLUMN_NAME                    UPDATABLE INSERTABL DELETABLE
------------------------------ --------- --------- ---------
X                              NO        NO        NO
Y                              NO        NO        NO
Z                              NO        NO        NO

3 rows selected.

As expected, and in alignment with the documentation, all the columns of this view are not inherently updatable, insertable or deletable.

So the next step (obviously 🙂 ) is to try inserting a record into the view:

ORA$BASE> insert into v (x,y) values (1,date'2016-06-24');

1 row created.

ORA$BASE> insert into v (x,y) values (1,date'2016-06-24');

1 row created.

ORA$BASE> select * from t;

         X Y          Z
---------- ---------- ----------
         1 24/06/2016
         1 24/06/2016

ORA$BASE> select * from v;

         X Y          Z
---------- ---------- ----------
         1 24/06/2016

And… we succeed.

Tested in 11.2.0.4 and 12.1.0.2.