DB2 - Problem description
| Problem IC99122 | Status: Closed |
PERFORMANCE COULD BE POOR WHEN A SMALL NICKNAME JOINS A LARGE NICKNAME JOIN RESULT | |
| product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / A50 - DB2 | |
| Problem description: | |
Performance could be poor when a small table joins a large table
join result, e.g.
select * from small_nick a, (select * from large_nick1 ln1,
large_nick2 ln2 where ln1.c = ln2.c) b where a.c = b.c
where the join of ln1 and ln2 generates a large result set. The
bad performance can be resulted from Optimizer fails to generate
a optimal plan. This is because, the optimal plan is a NLJN with
the large table as the inner side, and the join predicate is
pushdown to remote server with a FILTER under SHIP of inner side
to filter data fetched as much as possible, that is:
NLJN
/ \
SHIP SHIP
| |
a FILTER
/ \
large_nick1 large_nick2
However, due to limitation of Optimizer, a plan with the join
predicate above the SHIP will be chosen, such a poor plan could
be like:
NLJN
/ \
SHIP TBSCAN <---join predicate is included
here, right above the SHIP
| |
a TEMP
|
SHIP
|
FILTER
....
/ \
large_nick1 large_nick2
With such poor plan, all data from the two large nickames will
be fetched, causing bad performance. | |
| Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * Users who use Federation Server v10.5 * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * See Error Description * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Upgrade to Federation Server v10.5 fp4 or above * **************************************************************** | |
| Local Fix: | |
| available fix packs: | |
DB2 Cancun Release 10.5.0.4 (also known as Fix Pack 4) for Linux, UNIX, and Windows | |
| Solution | |
The problem is fixed in v10.5 fp4 | |
| Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
| Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 03.02.2014 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 |
| Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
| Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) | |
| 10.5.0.4 |
|