我无法弄清楚为什么有时候，计划的总成本可能只是一个非常小的数字，而在计划内部我们可以发现巨大的成本。 （实际上查询非常慢）。
有人可以解释一下吗？
这是一个例子。 显然，成本较高的部分来自主要选择中的一个字段，该字段在子视图上执行listagg，而具有此子视图的连接条件包含复杂条件（我们可以在一个字段或另一个字段上加入）。
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 875 | 20 |
| 1 | SORT GROUP BY | | 1 | 544 | |
| 2 | VIEW | | 1 | 544 | 3 |
| 3 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 481 | 3 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 5 | NESTED LOOPS | | 3 | 1443 | 2 |
| 6 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 7 | 140 | 1 |
| 7 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 7 | | 1 |
| 8 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 9 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 461 | 1 |
| 10 | SORT GROUP BY | | 1 | 182 | |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 8 | 1456 | 3 |
| 13 | NESTED LOOPS | | 8 | 304 | 2 |
| 14 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 7 | 154 | 1 |
| 15 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 7 | | 1 |
| 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | 16 | 1 |
| 17 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 18 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 144 | 1 |
| 19 | SORT GROUP BY | | 1 | 268 | |
| 20 | VIEW | | 1 | 268 | 9 |
| 21 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 108 | 9 |
| 22 | CONCATENATION | | | | |
| 23 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 24 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 108 | 4 |
| 25 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 79 | 3 |
| 26 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 59 | 2 |
| 27 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 16 | 1 |
| 28 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 29 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 43 | 1 |
| 30 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 31 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 32 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 33 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 34 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| 35 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 36 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 108 | 4 |
| 37 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 79 | 3 |
| 38 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 59 | 2 |
| 39 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 4 | 64 | 1 |
| 40 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 2 | | 1 |
| 41 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 43 | 1 |
| 42 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 43 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 44 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 45 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 46 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| 47 | SORT GROUP BY | | 1 | 330 | |
| 48 | VIEW | | 1 | 330 | 26695 |
| 49 | SORT UNIQUE | | 1 | 130 | 26695 |
| 50 | CONCATENATION | | | | |
| 51 | HASH JOIN ANTI | | 1 | 130 | 13347 |
| 52 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 53 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 110 | 4 |
| 54 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 81 | 3 |
| 55 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 61 | 2 |
| 56 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 16 | 1 |
| 57 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 58 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 45 | 1 |
| 59 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 60 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 61 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 62 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 63 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| 64 | VIEW | | 164K| 3220K| 13341 |
| 65 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 66 | NESTED LOOPS | | 164K| 11M| 13341 |
| 67 | NESTED LOOPS | | 164K| 8535K| 10041 |
| 68 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 164K| 6924K| 8391 |
| 69 | INDEX SKIP SCAN | | 2131K| | 163 |
| 70 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 71 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 72 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 73 | HASH JOIN ANTI | | 2 | 260 | 13347 |
| 74 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 75 | NESTED LOOPS | | 2 | 220 | 4 |
| 76 | NESTED LOOPS | | 2 | 162 | 3 |
| 77 | NESTED LOOPS | | 2 | 122 | 2 |
| 78 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 4 | 64 | 1 |
| 79 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 2 | | 1 |
| 80 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 45 | 1 |
| 81 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 82 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 83 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 84 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 85 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| 86 | VIEW | | 164K| 3220K| 13341 |
| 87 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | |
| 88 | NESTED LOOPS | | 164K| 11M| 13341 |
| 89 | NESTED LOOPS | | 164K| 8535K| 10041 |
| 90 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 164K| 6924K| 8391 |
| 91 | INDEX SKIP SCAN | | 2131K| | 163 |
| 92 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 93 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 94 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| 95 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 875 | 20 |
| 96 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 846 | 19 |
| 97 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 800 | 18 |
| 98 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 776 | 17 |
| 99 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 752 | 16 |
| 100 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 641 | 15 |
| 101 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 576 | 14 |
| 102 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 554 | 13 |
| 103 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 487 | 12 |
| 104 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 434 | 11 |
| 105 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 368 | 10 |
| 106 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 102 | 9 |
| 107 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 85 | 8 |
| 108 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 68 | 7 |
| 109 | NESTED LOOPS | | 50 | 2700 | 6 |
| 110 | HASH JOIN | | 53 | 1696 | 5 |
| 111 | INLIST ITERATOR | | | | |
| 112 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| | 520 | 10400 | 3 |
| 113 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 520 | | 1 |
| 114 | INLIST ITERATOR | | | | |
| 115 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| | 91457 | 1071K| 1 |
| 116 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 2 | | 1 |
| 117 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 22 | 1 |
| 118 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 119 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 14 | 1 |
| 120 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 121 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 17 | 1 |
| 122 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 123 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 17 | 1 |
| 124 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 125 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 266 | 1 |
| 126 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 127 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 66 | 1 |
| 128 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 129 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 53 | 1 |
| 130 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 131 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 67 | 1 |
| 132 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 133 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | | 1 | 22 | 1 |
| 134 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 65 | 1 |
| 135 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 136 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 111 | 1 |
| 137 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 138 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 24 | 1 |
| 139 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 140 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 24 | 1 |
| 141 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 142 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 46 | 1 |
| 143 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
| 144 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | | 1 | 29 | 1 |
| 145 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | | 1 | | 1 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
答案 0 :(得分：3)
声明的总成本通常等于或大于其任何子操作的成本。此规则至少有4个例外。
您的计划看起来像＃3，但我们无法查看代码。
<强> 1。 FILTER
执行计划可能取决于运行时的条件。这些条件导致FILTER操作将动态决定执行哪个查询块。下面的示例使用静态条件，但仍然演示了这个概念。子查询的一部分是非常昂贵的，但条件否定了整个事情。
explain plan for select * from dba_objects cross join dba_objects where 1 = 2;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display(format => 'basic +cost'));
Plan hash value: 3258663795
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Cost (%CPU)|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 0 (0)|
| 1 | FILTER | | |
| 2 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 11M (3)|
...
<强> 2。 COUNT STOPKEY
执行计划将子操作汇总到最终成本。但是儿童行动并不总能完成。在下面的示例中，可能正确的说计划的一部分成本为214.但由于条件where rownum <= 1，只有部分子操作可能会运行。
explain plan for
select /*+ no_query_transformation */ *
from (select * from dba_objects join dba_objects using (owner))
where rownum <= 1;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display(format => 'basic +cost'));
Plan hash value: 2132093199
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Cost (%CPU)|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 4 (0)|
| 1 | COUNT STOPKEY | | |
| 2 | VIEW | | 4 (0)|
| 3 | VIEW | | 4 (0)|
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 4 (0)|
| 5 | VIEW | DBA_OBJECTS | 2 (0)|
| 6 | UNION-ALL | | |
| 7 | HASH JOIN | | 3 (34)|
| 8 | INDEX FULL SCAN | I_USER2 | 1 (0)|
| 9 | VIEW | _CURRENT_EDITION_OBJ | 1 (0)|
| 10 | FILTER | | |
| 11 | HASH JOIN | | 214 (3)|
...
第3。 SELECT列列表中的子查询
成本聚合不包括SELECT列列表中的子查询。像select ([expensive query]) from dual;这样的查询总费用非常低。我不明白这个的原因; Oracle估计子查询和FROM中的行数，当然它可以将它们相乘以获得总成本。
explain plan for
select dummy,(select count(*) from dba_objects cross join dba_objects) from dual;
select * from table(dbms_xplan.display(format => 'basic +cost'));
Plan hash value: 3705842531
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Cost (%CPU)|
---------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 2 (0)|
| 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | |
| 2 | MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN | | 11M (3)|
...
<强> 4。其他 - 四舍五入？错误？
大约0.01％的计划仍然存在无法解释的成本问题。我找不到他们中的任何模式。也许它只是一个舍入问题或一些罕见的优化器错误。总会有一些奇怪的情况，任何模型都像优化器一样复杂。
检查更多例外情况
此查询可以找到其他例外，它会返回第一个成本低于最高成本的所有计划。
select *
from
(
--First and Max cost per plan.
select
sql_id, plan_hash_value, id, cost
,max(cost) keep (dense_rank first order by id)
over (partition by sql_id, plan_hash_value) first_cost
,max(cost)
over (partition by sql_id, plan_hash_value) max_cost
,max(case when operation = 'COUNT' and options = 'STOPKEY' then 1 else 0 end)
over (partition by sql_id, plan_hash_value) has_count_stopkey
,max(case when operation = 'FILTER' and options is null then 1 else 0 end)
over (partition by sql_id, plan_hash_value) has_filter
,count(distinct(plan_hash_value))
over () total_plans
from v$sql_plan
--where sql_id = '61a161nm1ttjj'
order by 1,2,3
)
where first_cost < max_cost
--It's easy to exclude FILTER and COUNT STOPKEY.
and has_filter = 0
and has_count_stopkey = 0
order by 1,2,3;