Speed of paged queries in Oracle

Question

This is a never-ending topic for me and I'm wondering if I might be overlooking something. Essentially I use two types of SQL statements in an application:

1. Regular queries with a "fallback" limit
2. Sorted and paged queries

Now, we're talking about some queries against tables with several million records, joined to 5 more tables with several million records. Clearly, we hardly want to fetch all of them, that's why we have the above two methods to limit user queries.

Case 1 is really simple. We just add an additional ROWNUM filter:

WHERE ...
  AND ROWNUM < ?

That's quite fast, as Oracle's CBO will take this filter into consideration for its execution plan and probably apply a FIRST_ROWS operation (similar to the one enforced by the /*+FIRST_ROWS*/ hint.

Case 2, however is a bit more tricky with Oracle, as there is no LIMIT ... OFFSET clause as in other RDBMS. So we nest our "business" query in a technical wrapper as such:

SELECT outer.* FROM (
  SELECT * FROM (
    SELECT inner.*, ROWNUM as RNUM, MAX(ROWNUM) OVER(PARTITION BY 1) as TOTAL_ROWS
    FROM (
      [... USER SORTED business query ...]
    ) inner
  ) 
  WHERE ROWNUM < ?
) outer
WHERE outer.RNUM > ?

Note that the TOTAL_ROWS field is calculated to know how many pages we will have even without fetching all data. Now this paging query is usually quite satisfying. But every now and then (as I said, when querying 5M+ records, possibly including non-indexed searches), this runs for 2-3minutes.

EDIT: Please note, that a potential bottleneck is not so easy to circumvent, because of sorting that has to be applied before paging!

I'm wondering, is that state-of-the-art simulation of LIMIT ... OFFSET, including TOTAL_ROWS in Oracle, or is there a better solution that will be faster by design, e.g. by using the ROW_NUMBER() window function instead of the ROWNUM pseudo-column?

Answer 1

The main problem with Case 2 is that in many cases the whole query result set has to be obtained and then sorted before the first N rows can be returned - unless the ORDER BY columns are indexed and Oracle can use the index to avoid a sort. For a complex query and a large set of data this can take some time. However there may be some things you can do to improve the speed:

1. Try to ensure that no functions are called in the inner SQL - these may get called 5 million times just to return the first 20 rows. If you can move these function calls to the outer query they will be called less.
2. Use a FIRST_ROWS_n hint to nudge Oracle into optimising for the fact that you will never return all the data.

EDIT:

Another thought: you are currently presenting the user with a report that could return thousands or millions of rows, but the user is never realistically going to page through them all. Can you not force them to select a smaller amount of data e.g. by limiting the date range selected to 3 months (or whatever)?

Answer 2

You might want to trace the query that takes a lot of time and look at its explain plan. Most likely the performance bottleneck comes from the TOTAL_ROWS calculation. Oracle has to read all the data, even if you only fetch one row, this is a common problem that all RDBMS face with this type of query. No implementation of TOTAL_ROWS will get around that.

The radical way to speed up this type of query is to forego the TOTAL_ROWS calculation. Just display that there are additional pages. Do your users really need to know that they can page through 52486 pages? An estimation may be sufficient. That's another solution, implemented by google search for example: estimate the number of pages instead of actually counting them.

Designing an accurate and efficient estimation algorithm might not be trivial.

Answer 3

A "LIMIT ... OFFSET" is pretty much syntactic sugar. It might make the query look prettier, but if you still need to read the whole of a data set and sort it and get rows "50-60", then that's the work that has to be done.

If you have an index in the right order, then that can help.

Answer 4

It may perform better to run two queries instead of trying to count() and return the results in the same query. Oracle may be able to answer the count() without any sorting or joining to all the tables (join table elimination based on declared foreign key constraints). This is what we generally do in our application. For performance important statements, we write a separate query that we know will return the correct count as we can sometimes do better than Oracle.

Alternatively, you can make a tradeoff between performance and recency of the data. Bringing back the first 5 pages is going to be nearly as quick as bringing back the first page. So you could consider storing the results from 5 pages in a temporary table along with an expiry date for the information. Take the result from the temporary table if valid. Put a background task in to delete the expired data periodically.